The Awareness Center closed. We operated from April 30, 1999 - April 30, 2014. This site is being provided for educational & historical purposes.
We were the international Jewish Coalition Against Sexual Abuse/Assault (JCASA); and were dedicated to ending sexual violence in Jewish communities globally. We did our best to operate as the make a wish foundation for Jewish survivors of sex crimes. In the past we offered a clearinghouse of information, resources, support and advocacy.

Tuesday, December 22, 1992

Sir, - I read with horror and rage a small news report on December 7, "Rapist gets 28 months." Judge Aharon Tomashoff handed down a sentence of five years to the rapist of a five-year-old. The criminal was a relative of the girl for whom he was a babysitter. As usual, the name of the criminal was not printed. Why is the name of the rapist is never noted in such articles?

To emphasize the travesty of justice, the sympathetic judge took into consideration that the perpetrator of this heinous crime had no prior record and so suspended 32 months of the sentence. So the criminal sits in jail for two years while the child will suffer for the rest of her life.

Tuesday, August 18, 1992

The Awareness Center wants to thank Dylan Farrow for the courage it took to speak her truth inher letter that was published in the New York Times. If she reads this message we just wanted to make sure she knew what an amazing role model she is for so many who are struggling with the long term effects that both incest and other forms of child sexual abuse play on our minds, bodies and spirit.

Those of us connected to The Awareness Center can't even begin to imagine how difficult it was just being a child with parents being celebrities, let alone being an incest survivor on top of it. Your ability to share your childhood experiences in such a public way, goes above and beyond what most people are able to do. By being able to speak out like this, means you are helping to save lives of those who feel as if they are the only one. We personally believe you are hero.

Thank you so much for your bravery, honesty and sharing your truth.

-––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

According to reports, Woody Allen, director/actor and actress Mia Farrow separated in 1992
after Farrow found nude photographs Allen had taken of her adopted
daughter, Soon-Yi Previn, then 22.

A public fight for the guardianship
of their three children began. During the procedures, Farrow alleged
that Allen had sexually molested another daughter, who was then 7. The
judge ultimately decided that the sex abuse charges were open to doubt,
but called Allen's conduct with Soon-Yi "inappropriate." The case never
went to trial and Allen was never indicted.

Woody ended up marrying his step-daughter who was 35-years younger then him.

Allen's Friends Challenge Sexual Abuse
Accusations : Custody battle: His colleagues portray him as a devoted
family man. They say Farrow may be putting words in her children's
mouths.(08/22/1992)

Child abuse claims: new divorce weapon (09/04/1992)

Woody Allen Wins Right to See Videotape :
Custody case: The filmmaker makes a surprise appearance at New York
hearing. A judge also rules he can send gifts to his children.(12/16/1992)

1993

Woody Allen Says Report Clears Him(03/19/1993)

Panel`s Report May Exonerate Woody Allen(03/19/1993)

Allen Says Report Vindicates Him(03/19/1993)

Allen Says He's Exonerated by Abuse Report(03/19/1993)

Woody Allen Says Coping With Abuse Charge Difficult(03/21/1993)

Farrow Tells of Offer to Break Allen's
Legs : Custody: Actress says an ex-husband proposed the violent
solution to her legal duel with filmmaker. She testifies daughter made
second claim of sex abuse.(03/27/1993)

NEW YORK - State police in Connecticut confirmed last night
that they were conducting a sexual-abuse investigation involving one of
the children in a custody fight between Woody Allen and Mia Farrow.

The matter, according to sources on both sides, arose earlier this
month when Farrow, 47, took the child to a pediatrician near
Bridgewater, Conn., where she maintains a home, and asked him to examine
the child for abuse.The physician, whose name was not disclosed, was required by state
law to report to authorities that he had been asked to look for possible
abuse, automatically triggering the investigation, the sources said.
State police have been to Farrow's estate at least twice, one source
said, as part of their investigation.Last night, Allen publicist Leslee Dart denied the abuse charges.
"Anybody who wants can make a complaint, whether false or not false, and
the state police are required to investigate," Dart said. Criminal
charges have not been filed, she said.One source close to Allen said that the examination disclosed "no
physical manifestations to support the claim" of abuse, while a Farrow
supporter said that Allen's custody suit was designed to blunt the
stories that have since surfaced about Allen and some of the children.A state police spokesman would say only that "there is a criminal investigation going on, and there is no comment."News of the Connecticut investigation came just hours after the
56-year-old filmmaker professed his love for Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, the
adopted daughter of Farrow and her former husband, conductor Andre
Previn.Sources say that the affair was responsible for a burst of legal
activity and personal attacks that have marked the nasty custody fight
since Thursday, when Allen filed suit to gain custody of adopted
daughter Dylan, 7; adopted son Moses, 14, and the couple's natural son,
Satchel, 4."Regarding my love for Soon-Yi: It's real and happily all true,"
Allen said in a statement released through Dart. "She's a lovely,
intelligent, sensitive woman who has and continues to turn around my
life in a wonderfully positive way."Allen and Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, a sophomore at Drew University in
Madison, N.J., reportedly started their affair about seven months ago,
according to friends of Allen.But as long ago as Jan. 23, 1990, they were photographed holding
hands at a New York Knicks basketball game at Madison Square Garden. In
court papers, she is said to be 21; but Farrow has told her attorneys
that she is 19, and a New York television station reported last night
that a brother of Soon-Yi, Fletcher Previn, said she is just 18.Yet Allen insisted in his written statement that his relationship
with Farrow's daughter had "no bearing whatsoever on my present
application for custody of my three children. They are totally separate
issues.""The last thing I wanted to do was go to court. I have tried
agonizingly to work out the details privately, but finally I was left
with no alternative," Allen said.Attorney Alan Dershowitz, one of two lawyers representing Farrow,
denied Farrow was behind the allegation. "Any criminal investigation was
not initiated by Mia Farrow. She has been and still remains interested
in trying to resolve this thing," he said.One source said that the director's affair with Soon-Yi Farrow Previn
began long after domestic distress first surfaced between Allen and
Farrow, who has appeared in 13 of his films. The two always maintained
separate Manhattan addresses and never married.Allen, as is his routine, played clarinet last night at Michael's Pub
on East 55th Street, entering through an office building next door,
accompanied by two escorts. He took the stage at 9 p.m., played to 10,
and some patrons said the show was no different than usual.One woman who attended the show said that Allen received a warm
reception. When he exited the stage, amid tight security, he walked
through the back dining room. He signed two autographs, then ducked into
an adjoining building.A noted legal expert predicted yesterday that Allen's revelation
probably kills his chances to obtain custody of the three children."I think her chances of keeping custody of the children are pretty
good," said Marvin Mitchelson, the celebrity divorce lawyer from Los
Angeles.But it is also likely, given recent trends in the courts to give
joint custody to mothers and fathers, that Allen will be allowed to
continue to see his children, Mitchelson said."You are talking about somebody who is a degenerate, to some degree,"
said Manhattan divorce lawyer Raoul Felder. "His chance of custody was
between zero and none originally . . . This reflection on his moral
character would preclude custody, and probably (unsupervised)
visitation."Farrow has four natural children - three of them while she was
married to conductor Andre Previn - and seven adopted kids, including
the Korean-born Soon-Yi. Neither Farrow nor Soon-Yi Farrow Previn could
be reached for comment.

By Bruce Weber New York Times - August 18, 1992The public dispute between two of New York's most famously private
people grew uglier and more public yesterday, as more details emerged
about the breakup of the 12-year relationship between the film maker
Woody Allen and his frequent leading lady, Mia Farrow.The first
came from Mr. Allen himself, when he released a statement that he is in
love with Ms. Farrow's 21-year-old daughter, Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, a
Korean by birth whom the actress had adopted with her second husband,
Andre Previn.The second was information from the Connecticut
State Police that they are investigating a case that involves Mr. Allen.
A lawyer for Ms. Farrow, Alan M. Dershowitz, said the case concerned
the suspicion of sexual abuse of another of Ms. Farrow's children.Ms. Farrow has a home in Bridgewater, Conn. The couple never lived together and keep separate apartments in New York.In
a murky case that became both news and gossip last week when Mr. Allen
filed suit against Ms. Farrow for custody of their three children, this
latest chapter is being played out against the backdrop of the pending
custody suit. Hints from Both Sides.

Since
the suit was filed, advocates of both Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow have
been been quick to offer explanations and information intended to
bolster one side or undermine another. But few who have spoken have been
willing to be named. For the most part, they have been extremely
cautious in their remarks, delivering information in the form of cryptic
hints.No one would say that Mr. Allen is a suspect in the abuse
of Ms. Farrow's child. Sgt. John Muccherino, the detective in charge of
the case for the Connecticut State Police, would say only: "We are
handling a case that involves Woody Allen."After hearing that the
police had confirmed an investigation, Mr. Dershowitz said it had been
spurred by a doctor who, after examining the child two weeks ago,
reported the results of his examination to the authorities.The
doctor, Vadakkekara Kavirajan of New Milford, Conn., is the regular
physician for Ms. Farrow's children. He would not comment other than to
say that if a parent makes a complaint of abuse, or if a child informs a
doctor of abuse, or if in the course of an examination the doctor gets
any inkling of abuse, he is required, by state law, to report the case
to the state's Child Protection Bureau. Citing the welfare of the child,
Dr. Kavirajan would not confirm he had made such a report in this case.
Statement Expected TodayA spokeswoman for Mr. Allen, Leslee
Dart, said : "Anybody who wants to can make a complaint, whether false
or not false, and the police have to investigate." She declined to
comment on whether Mr. Allen was the subject of a child sexual-abuse
investigation and added that Mr. Allen and his lawyers would be issuing a
statement today.As is his habit on Monday nights, Mr. Allen
played his clarinet last night at Michael's Pub on Manhattan's East
Side. His statement earlier in the day -- a proclamation of love --
followed reports in The Daily News and The New York Post of his
eight-month-long affair with the 21-year-old Ms. Previn, a college
student.In a most intimate confession for a press release, Mr.
Allen wrote: "Regarding my love for Soon-Yi: It's real and happily all
true. She's a lovely, intelligent, sensitive woman who has and continues
to turn around my life in a wonderfully positive way."The gossip
that became news that forced Mr. Allen's heartfelt disclosure yesterday
raises the old issue of whether art imitates life or the other way
around. Mr. Allen has long been known for his films about relationships
in which otherwise sympathetic characters (often played by himself and
Ms. Farrow) are drawn into romantic entanglements that ought to have
remained taboo. Perhaps most tellingly, in "Manhattan," a 47-year old
writer falls in love with a 17-year old high school girl.His next
film, "Husbands and Wives," opens in September and it features Ms.
Farrow. It is also his debut film for Tri-Star Pictures, and his
troubles might well be a public relations disaster. Asked yesterday
about the his reaction to the situation, Michael Medavoy, the president
of Tri-Star was taken somewhat aback."This has nothing to do with the movie," Mr. Medavoy said. "I've seen Woody's movie and I think it's one of his best."

Allen's Friends Challenge Sexual Abuse
Accusations : Custody battle: His colleagues portray him as a devoted
family man. They say Farrow may be putting words in her children's
mouthsBy DAVID TREADWELL and JOHN J. GOLDMAN Los Angeles Times - August 22, 1992

NEW
YORK — As charges and countercharges fly between Woody Allen and Mia
Farrow in their bitter child custody battle here, relatives and friends
of the famed actor-director have rallied to his defense, painting a
sympathetic picture of him and blasting Farrow for accusing him of
sexually abusing one of their children.Allen was described as a
devoted father and family man whose character is being viciously
slandered because of Farrow's wrath over Allen's love affair with her
adopted daughter from a previous marriage.

"It
really is the essence of 'Hell hath no fury,' " Letty Aronson, Allen's
sister and only sibling, told The Times. "She will do anything. Anyone
interested in the welfare of her children would not parade them in front
of TV cameras."Aronson was alluding to recent television
interviews given by two of Farrow's children, 14-year-old Moses Amadeus
Farrow and 17-year-old Daisy Previn, in which the youngsters assailed
Allen as a disturbed and violent man.Aronson contended that
Farrow treats her 11 children almost like servants and that Allen seeks
custody of the three who call him father because of his concern for
their welfare."He is absolutely appalled at the treatment of the children," she said.But
the idea that the actress is using her children as mouthpieces to
attack and discredit Allen was dismissed by Gary Springer, a member of
John Springer Associates, the Manhattan-based firm that handles Farrow's
publicity."She's not parading anybody," he said. "It's not like a
plot on Mia's part, with her saying, 'You kids go here, you kids go
there.' These kids are old enough not to be manipulated. They say what
they want."Marshall Brickman, a screenwriter and longtime
collaborator with Allen, said that he finds Farrow's accusations of
sexual abuse "hard to reconcile" with the man he has known and worked
with for so long."The stuff I have been reading in the papers, it
doesn't compute," he said. "I would have no problem leaving my children
with Woody. It seems like (Farrow) is very distressed about something.
She's probably very (peeved) that he got involved with the older girl."Brickman
added that he had talked to Allen recently and that his friend was
distraught over the charges being leveled against him."I think this thing is breaking his heart," he said. "It must be very sad for him. He has a very strong moral sense."Film
critic Judith Crist, another longtime friend of Allen's, added: "I
think that having a family relationship meant a good deal to him. I
regard him as a very decent human being, sensitive, and a creative man
with great loyalties."

The
vitriolic attacks between Allen and Farrow began last week after the
56-year-old director and actor sued his live-apart companion of 12
years, calling Farrow an unfit mother and saying that their relationship
was over.Allen seeks custody of Moses, who is adopted; their adopted daughter, Dylan, 7, and the couple's biological son, Satchel, 4 1/2.Legal
proceedings in the case are set to began Monday in state Supreme Court,
New York's trial-level court, before Justice Phyllis Gangel-Jacob.Farrow
has eight other children: three biological children from her marriage
to pianist-conductor Andre Previn and five others that they adopted.
Previn was her second husband. She previously was married to
singer-actor Frank Sinatra.Allen confessed to reporters this week
that he is in love with one of Farrow's adopted daughters from her
marriage to Previn, Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, a Korean orphan who has no
birth certificate but is believed to be 21.She is expected to
return to Rider College in Lawrence, N.J., next week for her final week
of summer classes, school officials told the Associated Press."We
knew she had a boyfriend, but we didn't know who," said Rachel Coffman,
a junior from Schenectady, N.Y., who lives in the same dormitory as
Soon-Yi Farrow Previn.Farrow has accused Allen of molesting Dylan
and maintains that she has a videotape of Dylan describing her adopted
father's unwanted attentions toward her.State police in
Connecticut, where Farrow has a country estate, reportedly have a copy
of the tape and have confirmed that Allen is under investigation,
although they decline to discuss any of the allegations against him."I
believe he molested Dylan and I can say that honestly," Daisy Previn
told reporters Thursday as she stood in the hallway of the family's
elegant Upper West Side apartment in Manhattan. "I believe he's sick,
and he could do something like that."But Jean Doumanian, a
Manhattan-based independent film producer who describes herself as a
close friend of Allen's for more than 25 years, says that she finds such
a charge preposterous and believes that Farrow may be putting words in
her children's mouths to bolster her case in the custody battle.

"She's
been with Woody for 12 years," Doumanian told The Times on Friday. "Has
he all of a sudden become this child molester? It's unconscionable,
it's just stupid to even imply that. I don't blame Mia for being pained,
but why take this rage and get your children involved and start these
charges against Woody?"Doumanian was also critical of Moses
Farrow's allegations that Allen once threatened to punch out his teeth.
"Do you think Woody has ever said anything like that to anybody in his
life?" she asked rhetorically. "I've known him 25 years and never known
him to speak harshly to anyone."

Farrow was not available for comment but Springer, her publicist,
branded as absurd allegations by Soon-Yi Farrow Previn that Farrow beat
her, hit her with a chair, shredded her clothing and locked her in her
room after learning that she was involved in a romantic affair with
Allen."It's inconceivable in terms of what I know about this
woman," he said. "Anna Strasberg, (stage director) Lee Strasberg's
widow, just the other day was comparing Mia to Mother Teresa. She's a
caring, concerned mother."But talk show host Dick Cavett, a
longtime friend of Allen's, said "not for one millisecond" does he
believe the allegations of sexual abuse."If Woody Allen's a child
molester, I will publicly kiss Pat Buchanan," Cavett told reporters.
"Things like this don't suddenly erupt in middle-age men."

Panel`s Report May Exonerate Woody AllenNew York Times - March 19, 1993

NEW
HAVEN, Connecticut -- A team of child-abuse investigators at Yale-New
Haven Hospital has cleared Woody Allen of Mia Farrow`s allegation that
he sexually molested their 7-year-old daughter, Allen and his attorney
said on Thursday.The findings, presented to Allen and Farrow at
the hospital after a seven- month inquiry, could represent a big step
toward exoneration of Allen in the eyes of the law and the public and
could tilt the custody battle between the estranged lovers in his favor.

Investigators
found that the child, Dylan Farrow, who is adopted, had not been
molested by anyone and that a videotape that had been the centerpiece of
the accusation was a result of either the child`s imagination or
someone else`s manipulation, Allen and his attorney said.On the videotape, made by Farrow, Dylan, under questioning by her mother, tells of abuse by her father.Farrow`s
attorney, Eleanor Alter, described the Yale-New Haven team`s report as
``incomplete and inaccurate`` and said that ``what actually happened
will be determined after the many witnesses testify under oath in a
court of law.``Allen, 57, had been accused of sexually abusing
the child in August at Farrow`s Bridgewater, Conn., home. As part of a
state police investigation of Farrow`s claims, the child-abuse
specialists were brought into the case.Despite what he said was
vindication by the report, which was not made public, Allen appeared
grim. ``I`m just breaking even,`` he said. ``I never did anything. I
would never molest a child.``Before leaving the hospital, Farrow said only, ``I will always stand by my children.``Law
enforcement officials have said that Frank Maco, state attorney for the
Litchfield judicial district, in which Farrow`s house is situated, will
rely heavily on the team`s conclusions in deciding whether to file
criminal charges against Allen.Maco could not be reached for
comment. He already has a report from the state police, who investigated
the sexual abuse charge and referred the case to Yale-New Haven
Hospital for expert evaluation.The report is expected to influence the custody battle between Allen and Farrow, which has raged since last summer.``I
believe this will turn everything around,`` Allen said. ``I haven`t
been permitted to speak to my daughter or see her in eight months, and I
think that`s going to change.``Allen said that in the report, ``there`s a strong recommendation that Mia, herself, seek psychiatric help.``

NEW
HAVEN — Movie maker Woody Allen said Thursday that a team of experts at
Yale-New Haven Hospital has cleared him of allegations that he sexually
abused his adopted 7-year-old daughter, Dylan.Allen proclaimed
his exoneration to scores of reporters in a courtyard outside the
hospital's child sexual abuse clinic, where he said doctors had just
briefed him and his former mate of 12 years, Mia Farrow, on a 30 to
40-page report describing the abuse allegations as untrue.

"I believe this will turn everything around," Allen said.Charges
of molestation were made last summer by Farrow, who is Dylan's mother.
The accusations were made during an extraordinarily public and
acrimonious child-custody fight.The findings were not made
public, and hospital officials would not discuss them. Farrow did not
address the findings, but her lawyer, Eleanor Alter, criticized them as
"incomplete and inaccurate." She said the experts refused to interview
people with important information about the complaint, including
Farrow's older children and a so-called "witness to part of the abuse."Farrow
has said the abuse occurred at her house in Bridgewater, and had filed a
complaint with Connecticut State Police. The experts at the Yale clinic
became involved in the investigation at the request of state police and
Litchfield County State's Attorney Frank Maco, who ultimately will
decide whether to prosecute Allen on Farrow's complaint.The
report was prepared after the experts, led by clinic director Dr. John
Leventhal, met repeatedly with Allen, Farrow and Dylan beginning last
fall.Both Allen and Farrow arrived at the New Haven clinic
Thursday around 1 p.m. Allen said the meeting was restrained and
unremarkable.Copies of the report also were delivered to state police, Maco and to two psychiatrists who are treating Dylan in Manhattan.During
an impromptu press conference after the 90-minute briefing, Allen said
the psychiatrists' report found that, "I never ever used my daughter,
that no sexual abuse took place."Farrow said only: "I just want to say that I'll always stand by my children."Farrow,
47, and Allen, 57, have one biological child, Satchel, 5, and two
adopted children, Moses, 14, and Dylan. Farrow also has eight other
children, some adopted and some biological. Although Farrow and Allen
maintained separate apartments on opposite sides of New York's Central
Park, they were romantically involved and their relationship was
hungrily chronicled by the New York tabloids.That relationship
exploded in August, when Allen announced that he had fallen out of love
with Farrow and into love with her 22-year-old daughter, Soon-Yi Previn,
whom Farrow adopted while married to composer-conductor Andre Previn.
The abuse allegation became public at the same time.

Allen has compared the split to being "at the center of a cosmic explosion."Since
summer, Allen and Farrow have been swapping accusations about who is
less fit to be a parent. Farrow moved to void Allen's adoption of Moses
and Dylan on grounds of fraud because, she said, he did not disclose his
"virtually incestuous relationship with their sister."Armed with
the report that he says clears him of wrongdoing, Allen says he will
immediately go to court in Manhattan to seek custody of Dylan and his
other children. Questions about custody of the children had been delayed
pending completion of the Yale report.Although complete details
of the report were not released, a source who is close to Allen and is
familiar with its contents said the report concludes that Dylan's
descriptions of the abuse were fabricated. The source, who did not want
to be identified, said Dylan was either programmed to make the
allegations or fabricated them under stress induced by her parents'
explosive breakup and Allen's romantic relationship with her older
sister.Outside the clinic Thursday, Allen said the report
concludes in part that Farrow needs therapy. He also criticized as
"doctored" a videotape Farrow made. On the videotape, Dylan describes
the abuse she allegedly suffered at Allen's hands.The source
close to Allen, who has seen the videotape, said Dylan describes the
abuse with words that a child would not normally use and looks up at the
camera as if for approval after making the allegations.Allen said Thursday that police and psychiatric experts he hired to examine the videotape have said it may be a fraud."Now
I feel that Eleanor [Alter] and Mia are going to have to squirm to get
out of this," Allen said. "A terrible, terrible crime has been committed
against my daughter," he said."My daughter is a virtual prisoner
in her house. Her statements might have been the result of stress. Or
she may have been programmed. The videotape was fraudulent from the
start. The tape has been doctored," Allen said.Although the Yale
report would seem to support Allen's claims of innocence, he still must
be cleared by the state police and Maco, who have been investigating the
case for nearly eight months.Both Maco and state police
spokesman Sgt. Scott O'Mara said Thursday that the report will be part
of the evidence they consider in deciding whether to prosecute Allen on
sexual abuse charges.Police and Maco said examinations such as
the one of Dylan by the Yale experts are routine parts of child sexual
abuse investigations in Connecticut. The Yale clinic was selected
because of its expertise in the field, Maco said.Maco said he
asked the clinic to examine two questions: whether there are impediments
to Dylan's perception that could influence memory or other mental
functions, and to what degree the child would be further traumatized by
possible prosecution of her father.Maco refused to discuss the case further, including how close he is to completing it

NEW
HAVEN, Conn. — Filmmaker Woody Allen said Thursday that a team of
physicians and social workers has exonerated him of Mia Farrow's
allegation that he molested their adopted 7-year-old daughter."The
conclusion is no molestation, no sexual abuse ever took place," Allen
said at a news conference in a courtyard of the Yale-New Haven Hospital.
"There is a strong recommendation that Mia herself seek psychiatric
help."

Farrow, 47, looking pale and stricken, appeared before reporters and said just one sentence before quickly departing."I just want to say that I will always stand by my children," she said.Allen,
57, and his former leading lady ended their 12-year relationship
explosively last summer when he disclosed that he was romantically
involved with Farrow's 22-year-old adopted daughter.In addition
to the child molestation dispute, Allen and Farrow are engaged in an
angry custody battle over their 4-year-old biological son, Satchel;
adopted daughter, Dylan, and adopted son, Moses, 14.Farrow charged that Allen molested Dylan at the actress' home in Bridgewater, Conn., last summer.Farrow's
lawyer, Eleanor Alter, quickly disparaged the lengthy report that was
relayed jointly to both Allen and Farrow during a conference at the
hospital that lasted more than three hours.The report is
"incomplete and inaccurate," Alter said, charging that the hospital team
had "declined to meet with people whose information would have been
vitally important to their findings.""Dylan has been consistent in the description of abuse and Miss Farrow will continue to support her," the lawyer added.Allen's
lawyers said the ruling strengthened his side in his custody battle
with Farrow. Allen said he intended to seek custody of Dylan and his
other children immediately.The report also probably headed off
any possible indictment by Connecticut prosecutors, who had ordered the
special team to try to determine if child abuse had taken place.The
report was compiled by Dr. John Leventhal, a pediatrician and director
of the child sexual abuse clinic at Yale-New Haven Hospital, and two
clinical social workers trained to detect child sexual abuse. Leventhal
had met with Allen, Farrow and Dylan since Thanksgiving.Farrow's
lawyers have moved to void Allen's adoptions of Moses and Dylan on
grounds of fraud because he failed to disclose his "virtually incestuous
relationship with their sister"--Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, one of the
actress' adopted daughters from her former marriage to conductor Andre
Previn.Allen charged that Farrow had "doctored" a videotape she
made of Dylan making the allegations of child abuse and had made 10
copies of the tape to distribute.

Woody Allen Says Coping With Abuse Charge DifficultOrlando Sentinel - March 21, 1993 NEW YORK — Woody Allen says he avoided visiting playgrounds and toy
stores or watching children's shows while child-abuse allegations
against him were investigated because any connection to children was too
painful. ''When I saw a father on the street with his child, it sent a
pang through me. Physical pain,'' today's Daily News quoted him as
saying. Allen announced Thursday that a team of sexual abuse experts had
exonerated him of accusations brought by his former lover, actress Mia
Farrow, that he had molested their 7-year-old adopted daughter, Dylan.
The Connecticut state attorney, who will decide whether to prosecute
Allen, said Friday that Farrow was acting as a concerned mother when she
accused Allen. Allen and Farrow are involved in a bitter custody
dispute over Dylan, their biological son, Satchel, and another adopted
child, Moses.

Farrow Tells of Offer to Break Allen's
Legs : Custody: Actress says an ex-husband proposed the violent
solution to her legal duel with filmmaker. She testifies daughter made
second claim of sex abuse.

By John GoldmanLos Angeles Times - March 27, 1993

NEW
YORK — Mia Farrow testified Friday that one of her prior husbands
offered to break Woody Allen's legs in the midst of the bitter child
custody battle between the filmmaker and his former leading lady.Farrow has been married twice--to conductor Andre Previn and singer Frank Sinatra.During
a day when Allen's lawyers sought to suggest that she held child abuse
allegations over the actor's head in an effort to obtain a better
custody settlement, Farrow acknowledged telling a therapist about the
threat to Allen.

Farrow's
lawyer quickly cut off a question about which husband made the offer,
and Acting State Supreme Court Justice Elliott Wilk sustained the
objection."It was a joke," Farrow added.Farrow and Allen had a 12-year relationship but never married.After
she learned that Allen was having an affair with Soon-Yi Farrow Previn,
the 22-year-old daughter she adopted with Previn, the actress said that
in her struggle to maintain her "moral roots" she read "The Trojan
Women" by Euripides, identifying with Hecuba, who puts out the eyes of
King Polymestor of Thrace.Farrow's lawyer, Eleanor Alter, asked if she saw Allen as the blinded king and if it was a threat."No, definitely not," Farrow replied. "He (Allen) would have had bodyguards--hundreds of them--if I had really threatened him."Farrow
also testified that Dylan, the 7-year-old daughter she adopted with
Allen, raised a second claim of sexual abuse against the actor about 10
days before a panel of experts in New Haven, Conn., cleared him of an
initial allegation that he had molested the child during a visit to her
summer home in Bridgewater, Conn., last August.The panel issued its report last week."She
told me another story . . . ," Farrow said, introducing in intimate
detail a charge that Allen had inappropriately touched Dylan while the
youngster was on a bunk bed ladder."I reported it to her psychiatrist," Farrow said.The
actress also said Dylan denied that Allen had molested her in the first
place, just before they went to an appointment with the panel of
physicians and social workers investigating the initial molestation
charge."She told me he did not do anything at all," Farrow
testified, adding that she had quickly passed on that information to the
evaluators and to Alter. But on the way back home, the actress
continued, Dylan confessed she had fabricated the story that nothing had
happened because she wanted to stay home "and watch cartoons."Elkan
Abramowitz, a lawyer for Allen who called Farrow to the stand as a
hostile witness, asked Farrow a series of questions as she ended almost
two days of testimony. Farrow replied that she really did not think that
the filmmaker was a homosexual. She insisted that she was nervous about
any of her children having contact with Allen because she was worried
about child abuse.Abramowitz asked whether, if she gained sole
custody of the three children she shares with Allen, she would permit
them to see their father.Farrow said the children would have their therapists to advise them, and if they wanted to see Allen they could.Allen
and Farrow are fighting over custody of their two adopted children,
Dylan and Moses, 14, and Satchel, 5, their biological son.

During
her testimony, Farrow admitted that she taped some phone conversations
with Allen in the days after the allegation of sexual abuse last August.
She denied knowing that her lawyers had suggested a multimillion-dollar
settlement from Allen in exchange for keeping the allegation quiet."Do you have a recollection of a number being thrown around, 7 or 8 million?" Abramowitz asked."It was done without my authority, without my knowledge," Farrow told the court.

For movie stars Woody Allen and Mia Farrow, it appears that art and courtroom battles imitate real life.Their
bitter child custody hearing, reminiscent of an ongoing soap opera plot
with daily charges and countercharges, is just taking place on a much
larger scale and stage than other cases of a similar nature, according
to several Chicago-area attorneys who specialize in family law.

At
one time it was adultery. Then it was drinking, followed by drug
addiction or domestic violence. Now, over the past half-dozen years,
child sexual abuse allegations have come to be seen as the most powerful
"J'accuse" in divorce battles.The accusations have become so
fraught with overtones of sinister gamesmanship that Woody Allen, in
fighting recent allegations that he molested his 7-year-old adopted
daughter, turned around and charged his accuser, Mia Farrow, of playing
"the child abuse card."

"In
custody cases, it is the atom bomb, it is the final weapon," said Allen
R. McMahon, a Santa Ana, Calif., attorney who has come to specialize in
representing parents accused of sexual molestation.But such
high-stakes charges, while sometimes substantiated, are also complicated
by both honest and hate-fueled misperceptions, torn loyalties of
children and lack of evidence. Many experts say judges have become more
skeptical, that the charges can backfire on the accuser and -- whether
true or false -- can cause lifelong emotional damage to the children
involved.Social awareness and mandatory reporting have increased
estimates of the incidence of sexual abuse in the United States from
1.87 per 10,000 children in 1978 to 15.88 per 10,000 in 1984. At the
same time, charges of molestation in custody and visitation disputes
have also risen, although researchers say they represent only about 2
percent of the total divorce cases.Nevertheless, "They assume a
dimension far beyond their numbers," said Hugh McIsaac, manager of
Family Court Services in Los Angeles County Superior Court's
Conciliation Court. "They are very emotional. They take a lot of time.
It is very damaging to kids to be in that situation where allegations
made are not true and, obviously, very damaging when they are true."Contrary
to popular belief, custody-related molestation charges are no less
valid than charges leveled by the general population, said sociologist
Nancy Thoennes, of the Center for Policy Research in Denver. Her 1987
study of 169 cases involving allegations of sexual abuse in custody
disputes in eight jurisdictions found that about half appeared to
involve some abuse, which is similar to the population at large.Researchers say many charges are based on a misperception of non-sexual behavior.For
instance, "a young child can report 'Daddy took a shower with me.' "
said therapist Jay Lebow with Chicago Child Custody Consultants. "Given
you have a mind-set that says, 'I think this person has gone crazy and
is doing all sorts of abnormal things,' you can digest this information
as being a statement of abuse when in fact it is only suggesting what
might be very normal behavior. Or Dad sleeps with a 7-year-old daughter
during visitation. It's inappropriate, but not abuse."While the
vast majority of those accused of child sexual abuse are men, it is
believed that ex-husbands, new boyfriends or other male relatives make
nearly as many accusations as do mothers."I hesitated because of
the fear of being perceived as a vindictive parent," said a 33-year-old
Santa Barbara, Calif., father of two who reported his brother-in-law to
Child Protective Services in the midst of a custody battle. His
children, ages 3 and 4, had repeatedly talked about mutual touching of
genitals while taking baths with their uncle. "You don't want to believe
this," he said. "But you have to do it. They're your kids and they're
so small."

The allegations were never substantiated, he said.Evaluators admit that the science of assessing child sexual abuse is far from refined.According
to Sacramento, Calif., psychologist Herbert N. Weissman, there are no
generally accepted profiles of victims nor abusers. A large percentage
of children who have been molested may exhibit no symptoms at all, while
unmolested children may have symptoms that can be misattributed to
sexual abuse. Other recognized symptoms, such as fear, anxiety,
depression, anger, withdrawal, sexual preoccupation and school or sleep
difficulties can be traced to normal development. In some cases, the
children are imitating behavior of adults they've seen at home or on
television.Because children can be stimulated by the repeated
questioning of psychologists, police and lawyers, some experts even
suggest videotaping a child's early testimony, as did Ms. Farrow, to
avoid the trauma as well as the distortions that the process can
produce."I think it ruins them for life," said researcher Ralph Underwager, director of the Institute for Psychological Therapies in
Northfield, Minn."You have taught an innocent child about all manner of explicit and frequently deviant sexual behavior."Most observers agree that the system is a mess -- either for not protecting children enough, or by trying too hard to lay blame."The unspoken tragedy is how public this is and how damaging," Mr. McIsaac said.He
believes the Farrow-Allen dispute cries for mediation, not court
proceedings. "It's an interesting story, but think of the damage it's
doing to these children. Thirty years from now they will be known as
'the Woody Allen children' and will bear the label for the rest of their
lives."That in itself is probably the greatest child abuse."

Woody Allen Wins Right to See Videotape :
Custody case: The filmmaker makes a surprise appearance at New York
hearing. A judge also rules he can send gifts to his children.

By John J. Goldman

Los Angeles Times - December 16, 1992

NEW
YORK — Woody Allen made a surprise appearance in court Tuesday and won
the right to view a videotape of his adopted 7-year-old daughter, Dylan,
during which she allegedly claims that the filmmaker molested her.Mia
Farrow, Allen's estranged longtime companion, was not present during
the sometimes acrimonious hearing on custody motions in New York State
Supreme Court.

During
the hearing, lawyers for Allen charged that Farrow had fired Dylan's
therapist after the psychologist told Farrow she had severe doubts about
the entire incident of purported sexual abuse.Friends of Allen
said the therapist drew her conclusion after viewing the videotape and
after conducting sessions with the child. Investigators in Connecticut,
where the incident allegedly occurred last August, have asked for the
psychologist's notes, these sources said.Lawyers for Farrow
contend that the therapist was discharged because Allen was paying her
fees and part of her plane fare to return from a European vacation to
resume treating the child after the allegations were made.Allen's lawyers in court Tuesday labeled that reason "a ruse."Farrow
and Allen ended their relationship last summer after a dozen years
together. They are engaged in a bitter custody battle over Satchel,
their 4-year-old biological son, Dylan and Moses, 14, two children whom
Allen adopted with Farrow last December.Farrow's lawyers charged
in court Tuesday that hotel and phone records in their possession show
that at the time of the adoption, Allen was having an affair with
Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, 21, one of Farrow's adopted daughters from her
former marriage to conductor Andre Previn.Allen denied this at a news conference after the hearing.Standing
in the glare of television lights at the courthouse, he was asked if he
would have taken up with Soon-Yi if he knew all this was going to
happen."If I had known this, I would never have taken Mia to that first lunch years ago," he replied with a small smile.After
hearing arguments for more than an hour, State Supreme Court Judge
Elliott Wilk ruled on a number of motions. The judge permitted Allen to
send holiday gifts to the children and a birthday present to Satchel,
who will be 5 next week. But he prohibited Allen from going to Dylan's
school and from seeking to have Dylan receive psychiatric help.Allen's
appearance in court was unexpected. Only days earlier, family friends
had stressed that the hearing would be routine and that he would not
attend.However, he walked into the courtroom and found a seat among surprised reporters in the second row of the gallery."I have never been in a courtroom before, except when I made a movie," he said before the hearing.As
lawyers for both sides argued, Allen leaned forward in his seat,
listening intently with his arms folded across his chest or resting his
chin in his hand. Once the hearing started, he seemed oblivious to the
journalists around him.

At his news conference, Allen said he was "thrilled" that he will be allowed to give the children holiday presents."I
am genuinely happy. My goal is to be reunited with my children as
rapidly as possible," he said. The director said he hoped authorities in
Connecticut would finish their inquiry "as rapidly as possible."Connecticut
State Police officials are looking into whether Allen sexually molested
Dylan during a visit to Farrow's home in the state. Allen, who has
denied the accusation, has met with an official panel of two social
workers and a pediatrician who are preparing a report for prosecutors.
The panel has also conducted regular interviews with Dylan and others
who may have knowledge of the situation.Prosecutors are not expected to make a decision in the matter until January.During Tuesday's hearing, Allen's lawyers argued that they should be able to see the videotape Farrow made of Dylan."Counsel
on this side of the table are the only people who have not seen it,"
Martin Obten, one of Allen's lawyers, charged sarcastically. Obten said
the tape had been "commercially reproduced in a video studio.""Numerous
people have seen it," he continued. "Showing this tape will damage this
child permanently. Under the law, we have a right to discovery of this
tape."

A
team of child-abuse investigators at Yale-New Haven Hospital here
cleared Woody Allen of Mia Farrow's assertion that he sexually molested
their 7-year-old daughter, Mr. Allen and his lawyer said today.

The
findings, presented to Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow at the hospital after a
seven-month inquiry, were not made public. Ms. Farrow's lawyer, Eleanor
B. Alter, did not specifically challenge the report, although she
characterized it as inaccurate.

The hospital report could
represent an enormous step toward exoneration of Mr. Allen in the eyes
of the law and the public and could tilt the custody battle between the
estranged lovers in his favor.

The investigators found that the
child, Dylan O. Farrow, who is adopted, had not been molested by anyone
and concluded that a videotape that had been the centerpiece of the
accusation was a result of either the child's imagination or someone
else's manipulation, Mr. Allen and his lawyer said.

On the videotape, made by Ms. Farrow, Dylan, under questioning by her mother, tells of abuse by her father.

NEW YORK - Painting Woody Allen as a person
hopelessly unsuited for parenthood, a New York judge yesterday denied
his suit against Mia Farrow for custody of their three children, writes
Peter Pringle. The ruling ended a sensational trial that exposed Allen's
selfishness and Farrow's scattiness, and left the children as the
victims.

Farrow, appearing relaxed for the first time since the seven-week
trial, said it had been a nightmare during which her children had been
'ripped apart emotionally'. Her lawyer, Eleanor Alter, said she had
found Allen's behaviour 'morally unacceptable and sexually baffling'.
She complained that 'the more he talked, the worse it got'.

Reading from the court's ruling, the lawyer said Allen was judged to
be 'self-absorbed, untrustworthy and insensitive', and that he had
launched a 'frivolous petition of no merit'.

The judge, Elliot Wilk, explaining why he had denied Allen custody of
his son, Satchel, 5, and two of Farrow's children, Dylan, 7, and Moses,
15, whom he had adopted, said the film director had demonstrated 'an
inability to understand the impact his words and deeds have upon the
emotional well-being of his children'. Allen was ordered to pay the
costs. The judge barred him from visiting Dylan for at least six months,
said by Farrow to have been molested by Allen. Independent sexual-abuse
experts cleared him of that accusation. The judge ruled: 'It is unclear
whether Allen will ever develop the insight and judgement necessary for
him to relate to Dylan appropriately.'

The sexual abuse charges were always vehemently denied by Allen, but
Farrow's lawyer said the judge's ruling implied he may never be allowed
regular visits with the child. After six months he must pass a
therapist's examination before he can see her, and then only with a
therapist. Allen has spent many years in therapy. Farrow's lawyer
observed sarcastically: 'He just looks for permission to do what he
wants.'

The judge allowed Allen, who is 57, supervised visits with Satchel
for two hours three times a week. He is not allowed to visit Moses
unless the youth requests it - and Moses has said he does not want to
see him.

Farrow and Allen split up after she found nude photos of her adopted
daughter Soon-Yi Previn, 22, that had been taken by Allen. He later
admitted he was having an affair with Soon-Yi, a South Korean adopted by
Farrow and her former husband, the conductor Andre Previn. Farrow, 48,
has 11 children, seven of which have been adopted.

In a separate action Farrow has asked the court to undo Allen's
adoption of Moses and Dylan. She claims he defrauded her and the court
by concealing he was sexually involved with Ms Previn. A hearing is due
tomorrow.

Describing Woody Allen as a "self-absorbed, untrustworthy and
insensitive" father, a judge in Manhattan yesterday rejected his attempt
to win custody of his three children and awarded custody to their
mother, Mia Farrow.

In a scathing 33-page decision, Acting Justice Elliott Wilk of State
Supreme Court denounced Mr. Allen for carrying on an affair with one of
Ms. Farrow's daughters, trying to pit family members against one another
and lacking knowledge of the most basic aspects of his children's
lives.

The judge also denied Mr. Allen immediate visiting rights with his
7-year-old daughter, Dylan Farrow. Last summer Ms. Farrow accused the
57-year-old film maker of molesting the child. Justice Wilk said it was
unlikely that Mr. Allen could be prosecuted for sexual abuse based on
the evidence. But while a team of experts concluded that Dylan was not
abused, the judge said he found the evidence inconclusive.

Visiting Rights Under Review

"After considering Ms. Farrow's position as the sole caretaker of the
children, the satisfactory fashion in which she has fulfilled that
function and Mr. Allen's serious parental inadequacies, it is clear that
the best interests of the children will be served by their continued
custody with Ms. Farrow," Justice Wilk wrote.

The judge, however, did not entirely close the door on any possible
future contact between Mr. Allen and Dylan, ruling that a therapist must
be hired within six months to determine whether it would be harmful for
Dylan to resume visits with Mr. Allen, whom she has not been permitted
to see since August. "A further review of visitation will be considered
only after we are able to evaluate the progress of Dylan's therapy," the
judge said.

In addition, while Justice Wilk denied Mr. Allen's request for
unsupervised visits with his 5-year-old son, Satchel Farrow, he allowed
him to increase the number of weekly supervised visits with the boy from
two to three. As for Mr. Allen's third child, 15-year-old Moses Farrow,
the justice said he would accede to the boy's wishes that he not be
forced to see his father.

In almost every way, the opinion was a repudiation of the parental role
of Mr. Allen, who filed his custody lawsuit last August, about a week
after Ms. Farrow accused him of molesting Dylan at Ms. Farrow's country
home in Bridgewater, Conn. A team of investigators from Yale-New Haven
Hospital that was retained by the Connecticut State Police subsequently
concluded Dylan had not been abused.

Mr. Allen's lawyers have maintained that the charges were concocted by
Ms. Farrow out of anger over Mr. Allen's affair with her adoptive
daughter, Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, who is now 22 years old.

Justice Wilk, however, had few unkind words for Ms. Farrow, whom he
commended as a caring and loving mother who had tried to protect her
children from what he characterized as Mr. Allen's manipulativeness and
insensitivity. "Ms. Farrow's principal shortcoming with respect to
responsible parenting appears to have been her continued relationship
with Mr. Allen," he wrote.

On the other hand, Justice Wilk portrayed Mr. Allen as devious, hurtful
and unreliable, a father who did not know the names of his son's
teachers -- or even which children shared which bedrooms in Ms. Farrow's
apartment. Mr. Allen lived in a separate apartment on the other side of
Central Park.

Referring to what Dylan's own psychotherapist called Mr. Allen's
inappropriately intense behavior toward the little girl, the justice
said it was unclear whether Mr. Allen could ever develop "the insight
and judgment necessary for him to relate to Dylan appropriately."

"Mr. Allen has demonstrated no parenting skills that would qualify him
as an adequate custodian for Moses, Dylan or Satchel," the justice
wrote. "His financial contributions to the children's support, his
willingness to read to them, to tell them stories, to buy them presents
and to oversee their breakfasts, do not compensate for his absence as a
meaningful source of guidance and caring in their lives.

"These contributions," he continued, "do not excuse his evident lack of
familiarity with the most basic details of their day-to-day existences."

The justice said he considered Mr. Allen's affair with Soon-Yi Farrow
Previn -- and his inability to comprehend the impact the romance was
having on the other children in the Farrow household -- further evidence
of his deficiencies as a parent. "Having isolated Soon-Yi from her
family, he left her with no visible support system," Justice Wilk wrote.

Ms. Farrow also has six children whose father is her former husband,
Andre Previn. Of her three children with Mr. Allen, Moses and Dylan were
adopted and Satchel is their biological son. Tomorrow, a hearing is
scheduled in Surrogate's Court in Manhattan on Ms. Farrow's request to
overturn Mr. Allen's adoption of Moses and Dylan.

The judge's ruling came a month after the conclusion of the couple's
bitter custody trial in state Supreme Court in Manhattan, during which
30 witnesses, including psychotherapists, family employees and close
friends of the actress and the director testified about the fitness of
each parent.

Ms. Farrow and her lawyers were jubilant yesterday as they celebrated
what they termed their total victory. "You got everything!" Ms. Farrow's
lawyer, Eleanor Alter, told her client yesterday morning as she read to
her from the ruling over the telephone in a booth in the state Supreme
Court building. At a news conference at Ms. Alter's office in Manhattan
later in the day, Ms. Farrow, in her first public comments since the
trial, expressed her pleasure and relief at the outcome.

"For so many, many months, my family has been living through a
nightmare," Ms. Farrow said, her eyes filled with tears. "My children
have been ripped apart emotionally. I'm so proud of how they've held
themselves together, stood by one another and stood by me."

Appeals Considered

An hour later and about five blocks away, Mr. Allen appeared briefly at a
news conference conducted by his lawyer, Elkan Abramowitz. Declining to
take questions from reporters, he said he was disappointed with some
aspects of the decision, but happy that the judge would allow him, even
in a limited way, to see Dylan.

"I'm thrilled I'm going to get to see my daughter again, because she has
been withheld from me since last August," Mr. Allen said. He added,
however, that he was disappointed that he would not be permitted to see
Satchel outside the presence of a social worker during the two-hour
visits he will be allowed three times a week. And he expressed hope that
at some point, Moses would want to see him again.

Mr. Abramowitz said that as far as his client was concerned, the
justice's decision to allow him access to Dylan was a major victory, and
the criticisms of his ability as a father were of secondary importance.
The lawyer said he was considering an appeal of several aspects of the
ruling, including the supervision provisions for Satchel, as well as a
ruling by the justice that Mr. Allen's lawsuit was frivolous and that he
pay all of Ms. Farrow's legal costs.

While Ms. Alter said she had not yet calculated the fees for Ms.
Farrow's side, experts in custody proceedings say the costs could amount
to $1 million on each side in the case.

Assessing a Reputation

Mr. Abramowitz said that as a result of the case, Mr. Allen's reputation
had taken "an enormous hit." But he said he believed that he had
successfully disproved the molestation allegation during the trial. "I
don't think any one person could do more to prove that this did not
happen," he said.

Justice Wilk, however, questioned the manner in which the Yale-New Haven
team carried out its investigation of the allegations, as well as
conclusions by two psychotherapists who treated Dylan that she had not
been abused. "I am less certain, however, than is the Yale-New Haven
team, that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual
abuse," Justice Wilk wrote.

The justice said he believed the conclusions of the psychotherapists had
been "colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen." He added that the
unwillingness of members of the Yale-New Haven team to testify at the
trial, except through a deposition by the team leader, and the
destruction of the team's notes had "compromised my ability to
scrutinize their findings and resulted in a report which was sanitized
and, therefore, less credible."

The circumstances under which Mr. Allen would meet with Dylan remained a
matter of dispute yesterday. Ms. Alter said that she interpreted
Justice Wilk's opinion as preventing Mr. Allen from seeing Dylan for at
least six months, while the evaluation of the girl by a new therapist
proceeds. But Mr. Abramowitz said he believed that Mr. Allen would have
an opportunity to be with Dylan sooner, in the presence of a therapist.

At the news conference in her office, Ms. Alter said that Dylan had only
a vague conception of the battle that has been waged over her and her
siblings for months. She said that in the months away from Mr. Allen,
the girl has become a happier child. "She has flowered in school and
psychologically," the lawyer said.

Ms. Farrow told reporters that she bore no ill feeling toward Soon-Yi,
who is still involved romantically with Mr. Allen. "I would dearly love
to have a relationship with Soon-Yi," she said. "That has been my
fervent wish since this began."

In the meantime, she said, she hopes that the decision will mean a
return to some sense of normalcy for her family. "It will be a long road
until we wake up to a really normal day," Ms. Farrow said. "We hope
this will be a new beginning."

A
state's attorney in Connecticut said yesterday that he had "probable
cause" to prosecute Woody Allen on charges that he sexually molested his
adopted daughter, but had decided to spare her the trauma of a court
appearance.The state's attorney in Litchfield, Frank Maco, said
he had drawn up an arrest warrant for Mr. Allen, but then decided not to
pursue the case. He said the girl's mother, Mia Farrow, had agreed that
dropping the charges was in her daughter's best interest."This
was no time for a damn-the-torpedoes prosecutorial approach," Mr. Maco
said at a news conference in Wallingford, Conn., yesterday.But
Mr. Maco seemed to go out of his way to say publicly that he believed
the child had been molested. He was not obligated to make his decision,
or his reasoning, public.The announcement ended a criminal
investigation that had dragged on for 14 months. But it did not signal a
cease-fire between Mr. Allen and Mia Farrow, his companion of a dozen
years and the mother of his biological son, Satchel, and two adopted
children, Dylan and Moses. A bitter custody battle over the three
children was decided in Ms. Farrow's favor last June, but Mr. Allen has
appealed that ruling. He now visits only one of the children, Satchel.

At dueling news conferences today, Mr. Allen and Eleanor B. Alter, Ms. Farrow's lawyer, continued their name-calling.At
the Plaza Hotel, in the same room where he first announced his plan to
sue for custody, Mr. Allen referred to Ms. Farrow as "the mother,"
called her "vindictive" and said she was in cahoots with officials whose
"cheap scheming reeks of sleaze and deception."Ms. Alter said
later that in light of Mr. Maco's statements "we would hope that parents
of other children put in contact with Woody Allen would use vigilance."Mr.
Allen was accused of sexually abusing his daughter last August at Ms.
Farrow's house in Bridgewater, Conn. Six months ago, a team of
investigators at Yale-New Haven Hospital concluded that no sexual abuse
had taken place but said both Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow had disturbed
relations with Dylan.Ms. Alter had discounted the report, saying it was
incomplete and inaccurate. Mr. Maco said he had requested the hospital
study, which described Dylan as a dreamy child who "had difficulty
distinguishing fantasy from reality."But he discounted its
findings, saying his own review of investigative reports and medical
evaluations had convinced him that he did have enough evidence to take
to trial. He said there was nothing in the report from the Yale clinic
"that would lead me to question the credibility of the child." He also
cited the findings of the judge in the custody case, who called Mr.
Allen's conduct with Dylan "grossly inappropriate."Mr. Maco's
remarks about the case were criticized by some legal scholars, who said
it was an unfair attempt to have it both ways by claiming victory
without taking the case to trial.Stephen Gillers, a professor at
New York University Law School and an expert on legal ethics, criticized
Mr. Maco, saying, "You don't declare the man guilty and then say you're
not going to prosecute, leaving him to defend himself in the press.""It's
a violation of Allen's constitutional rights, in my view," Mr. Gillers
said. "I can't overemphasize how remarkable this is." Attack on the
ProsecutorMr. Allen also attacked the prosecutor. He said that if
the prosectors had any hope of making a case against him stick, "the
state's attorney would, with full maternal consent, proceed nonstop even
if it meant putting my little girl through a meat grinder."

Mr.
Allen drew laughter from the crowd of journalists as he described his
dealings with Connecticut police as a scene straight out of one of his
movies. But his long, tortuous diatribe against Ms. Farrow and the
authorities investigating the case occasionally seemed to follow its own
internal logic, as when he addressed a message to his daughter,
apologizing for missing her eighth birthday and assuring her that "the
dark forces will not prevail.""Not second-rate police or judicial
setbacks, not tabloid press nor those who perjure themselves nor all
who rush to judgment, not the pious or hypocritical, the bigoted; I'm
too tough for all of them put together and I will never abandon you to
the bad guys," he said. A Celebrity PursuedAt another point in
the half-hour news conference, he suggested that authorities had known
from the outset that he was innocent, but pursued him because he was a
celebrity and because "they disapproved of my publicized romantic
relationship" with Ms. Farrow's daughter, Soon-Yi Previn. Or, he said,
"Is it possible they were prejudiced against me because I'm a diehard
New Yorker and Ms. Farrow a Connecticut local?"

Dressed
in khaki trousers and a blue blazer, Mr. Allen appeared angry but
contained. Rarely looking up from his prepared text, he declined to take
questions, which were answered by his lawyer, Elkan Abramowitz.Mr.
Allen concluded his remarks by proposing that he and Ms. Farrow declare
a truce "for the sake of the little children," and even tried a little
flattery."I know you can be forgiving and quite terrific at
times," he said of Ms. Farrow. "You're a first-rate actress and a
beautiful woman."At a later news conference, Ms. Farrow's lawyer, Ms. Alter, said that her client wasn't buying."Mr. Allen's idea of peace is for us to give up," she said.

NEW
YORK — Woody Allen lashed out Friday at his ex-lover Mia Farrow, police
and a Connecticut prosecutor who said he was not going to try the
filmmaker even though he believes Allen molested his daughter.Allen
said that Farrow, the prosecutor and police formed an "unwholesome
alliance" against him. "Their cheap scheming reeks of sleaze and
deception," he said.

The
filmmaker held a news conference soon after Litchfield, Conn., State's
Atty. Frank Maco said he would not press a sexual abuse charge, despite
his belief that there was "probable cause" to support it.Maco
said state police investigators had drawn up an arrest warrant for Allen
but he decided there was no "compelling interest" in further pursuing
the sexual abuse allegations.Later, Farrow's lawyer said her
client agreed with the prosecutor's decision to spare 8-year-old Dylan
from the trauma of a trial.Farrow felt "everything that could
possibly be done was done to protect the child," Eleanor Alter said at a
separate news conference that Farrow did not attend.Allen, 58,
who was accused of sexually fondling Dylan in an attic at Farrow's
Connecticut country house in August, 1992, said the case was dropped
because "there is no chance they could possibly win."Allen has not seen Dylan in 14 months. He read a rambling five-page statement apologizing to her for his lengthy absence."I
want to send this message to my little girl: I'm sorry I missed your
eighth birthday, but they just wouldn't let me," Allen said. "I love
you, and I miss you. And don't worry--the dark forces will not prevail."Allen
called on Farrow, his former lover and co-star, to engage in a truce in
their much-publicized breakup and battle for custody of their three
children."The only prerequisite I have," Allen said in his only
light moment, "is that you stop sending me bills from Alan Dershowitz."
The prominent lawyer had advised Farrow."If the Arabs in Israel can do it, we can," Allen added.But
Farrow's attorney said Allen had other requirements, mostly that Farrow
allow him immediate visitation rights to their children."Mr. Allen's idea of peace is for us to give up everything and he should see the children right away," Alter said.

Farrow,
who won custody of the three children in June, is trying to void
Allen's adoption of Dylan and her 15-year-old brother, Moses.Farrow
was Allen's lover of 12 years before they split up in January, 1992,
over Allen's affair with Farrow's adopted daughter, 22-year-old Soon-Yi
Previn.An ugly court fight followed for custody of Dylan and Moses, both adopted, and 5-year-old Satchel, their biological son.

Woody Allen Fails to Beat A ProsecutorBy Randy KennedyNew York Times - November 4, 1993A criminal-justice panel in Connecticut voted unanimously yesterday
to dismiss a complaint by Woody Allen against a prosecutor who had said
there was "probable cause" to believe Mr. Allen had molested his
7-year-old daughter, but then declined to file charges.The
Connecticut Criminal Justice Commission, which appoints state's
attorneys and can punish or dismiss them, said after four hours of
deliberation that there was no evidence that the prosecutor, Frank S.
Maco, the Litchfield County State's Attorney, had violated the canon of
ethics for lawyers in his remarks during a news conference in September
at which he announced he was dropping the charges.Ralph Elliot, a
lawyer and member of the panel, said shortly before the vote that he
believed Mr. Maco had stepped over no ethical lines. "One can see a
state's attorney who was attempting to let the public know and
understand the bases on which he chose to exercise" his choice to
prosecute, he said.While the vote was unanimous, some on the
seven-member panel qualified their decisions in statements later. A.
William Mottolese, a Superior Court judge and member of the panel,
called Mr. Maco's remarks "insensitive and inappropriate." He added that
he thought the commission should not have limited itself to the
specific complaints made by Mr. Allen. Sexual Abuse Case Dropped

Mr.
Allen's complaint stems from a 14-month criminal investigation by both
New York State's Department of Social Services and Connecticut
prosecutors into charges that he sexually abused his adopted daughter,
Dylan, in August 1992 at a house in Bridgewater, Conn., owned by Mia
Farrow, Mr. Allen's companion of more than 10 years.Mr. Maco said
he had drawn up an arrest warrant for Mr. Allen but decided not to
pursue the case because he wanted to spare Dylan the trauma of a trial.
He said Ms. Farrow had agreed that dropping the charges was in her
daughter's best interest. When asked if he had enough evidence to
convince a jury that Mr. Allen was guilty, he said: "Arguably, I do."New
York State child welfare investigators, in a letter on Oct. 7, said
that they had dropped their inquiry into the charges, because they
considered the accusation unfounded.A bitter custody battle
between the two ended last May when a State Supreme Court judge in
Manhattan awarded Ms. Farrow custody of the couple's three children,
Satchel, Moses and Dylan, now 8 years old. Mr. Allen is appealing that
ruling, which included a scathing denunciation of the film maker for
carrying on an affair with one of Ms. Farrow's daughters and for
"grossly inappropriate" conduct with Dylan.A second complaint filed by Mr. Allen against Mr. Maco is pending with the statewide bar counsel.

A
Litchfield County prosecutor's struggle to fend off career-threatening
ethics complaints by actor and director Woody Allen is nearing an end.A
panel of the Statewide Grievance Committee, which has authority over
lawyers' licenses, on Wednesday recommended dismissing Allen's complaint
against Litchfield County State's Attorney Frank Maco.

But
while recommending the charges be dropped, the panel's 19-page, single-
spaced decision nevertheless was sharply critical of Maco's actions.The
panel chastised Maco for his performance at a September 1993 press
conference in which he announced he would not prosecute Allen on sex
abuse charges, but said he had enough evidence to justify an arrest.At
that press conference, the panel found, Maco's statements ``clearly
allowed reasonable people to conclude that [Maco] was saying that
[Allen] was factually guilty.''``We are highly critical of
[Maco's] lack of sensitivity, in this case, to the concept of the
presumption of innocence.,'' the three-member panel said. ``It is a
deeply rooted principle in our society that an individual is protected
against a label of guilt without first having a fair opportunity to
defend within the justice system. . . . It is important that officers of
the court help maintain the public's confidence in the integrity of the
justice system.''Maco took time out from his celebratory lunch
of softshell crab at the Litchfield Inn to comment on the proposal. He
said he was relieved and grateful to the panel. Not even the committee's
reproach could spoil his victory.``I've listened and paid
attention to their critique. I'm not above criticism. But I'm extremely
grateful for their dismissal,'' he said.Maco, who has not tried
cases in court since the Statewide Grievance Committee began its inquiry
in 1994, said he would not resume his court work before the full
committee votes on the panel's recommendation in July.Elizabeth
F. Collins, a spokeswoman for the committee, declined to comment when
asked how often the full committee approves or amends recommendations of
its panels.Allen's New York lawyer referred questions to his
publicist, who did not comment. And his Connecticut lawyer, James
Cowdery, said ``under the circumstances, it would be inappropriate to
comment.''Maco's boss, Chief State's Attorney John M. Bailey,
expressed satisfaction with the committee's recommendation. ``This case
took an enormous personal toll on Mr. Maco and his family,'' Bailey said
in a prepared statement. ``Those who know Frank can attest to his high
ethical standards, integrity and dedication to the highest ideals of
public service.''

At
issue since October 1993 -- when Allen's lawyers lodged his complaint
with the state Criminal Justice Commission -- is whether Maco
essentially convicted Allen in the court of public opinion at the press
conference. At that time, Maco told reporters he would not prosecute
Allen on sex abuse charges although he believed he had enough evidence
to arrest him.A year earlier, in 1992, Allen's former lover,
actress Mia Farrow, had brought Dylan Farrow -- a daughter she and Allen
had adopted -- to a doctor because Dylan reportedly complained that
Allen had touched her inappropriately. The doctor reported the complaint
to police, and an investigation of Allen began.When Maco
announced that he would not prosecute, he explained that he did not want
to put Dylan through the stress of a criminal trial. Maco referred to
Dylan as a ``victim'' during the press conference -- a word Allen's
lawyers said implied a crime had been committed.Maco also
directed his secretary to fax copies of his statement to two judges in
New York. The judges were ruling on Allen's visitation rights with
Dylan, and on a motion filed by Farrow to annul Allen's adoption of
Dylan and one of her other children.Those statements and faxes
became the focal point of Allen's complaint before the Statewide
Grievance Committee. In briefs and hearings that spanned this past year,
Allen's attorneys argued that Maco could have prejudiced the cases
pending in New York, a violation of Connecticut's code of conduct for
lawyers.The panel concluded it could find no evidence that Maco
intended to influence the New York judges. Nor did it find clear
evidence that Maco knew or should have known that his actions could
prejudice the court proceedings in New York.In his defense, Maco
testified that he felt compelled to explain his decision not to
prosecute. He was concerned, he said during the hearings, that his
constituents would think he was giving preferential treatment to Allen
because of his celebrity status, or wouldn't vigorously prosecute
allegations of sexual abuse.The panel concluded it was reasonable
for Maco to explain his decision ``to reassure the community of the
integrity of his office and his commitment to investigate such
allegations.''But Maco's statements went beyond reassurance, the
panel found. He ``used the word `victim' and made strong comments on the
validity of Ms. Farrow's actions and the child's credibility.''

WOODY ALLEN v. MARIA VILLIERS FARROWFind A Case - May 12, 1994ecided: May 12, 1994.WOODY ALLEN, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,v.MARIA VILLIERS FARROW, ALSO KNOWN AS MIA FARROW, RESPONDENT-RESPONDENT.Appeal by petitioner-appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New
York County (Elliott Wilk, J.) entered on July 13, 1993 which, inter
alia denied his request for custody, set forth the terms of visitation,
and awarded counsel fees to the respondent.Francis T. Murphy, Presiding Judge, Joseph P. Sullivan, John Carro, Richard W. Wallach, David Ross, Justices.

Author: RossROSS, J.In this special proceeding commenced by petitioner to obtain custody of,
or increased visitation with, the infant children Moses Amadeus Farrow,
Dylan O'Sullivan Farrow and Satchel Farrow, we are called upon to
review the IAS Court's decision which, inter alia, awarded custody of
the three children to the respondent, denied the petitioner's requests
regarding visitation and awarded counsel fees to the respondent. Upon
such review we conclude, for the reasons set forth below, that the
determination of the IAS Court was in accordance with the best interests
of these children, and accordingly, we affirm.The petitioner and the respondent have brought themselves to this
unhappy juncture primarily as a result of two recent events. These are,
Mr. Allen's affair with Soon-Yi Previn and the alleged sexual abuse of
Dylan O'Sullivan Farrow by Mr. Allen. While the parties had difficulties
which grew during Ms. Farrow's pregnancy with Satchel, it was the
discovery of the relationship between Mr. Allen and Ms. Previn that
intensified Ms. Farrow's concerns about Mr. Allen's behavior toward
Dylan, and resulted in the retention of counsel by both parties. While
various aspects of this matter remain unclear, it is evident that each
party assigns the blame for the current state of affairs to the other.The parties' respective arguments are very clear. The petitioner
maintains that he was forced to commence this proceeding in order to
preserve his parental rights to the three infant children, because the
respondent commenced and continues to engage in a campaign to alienate
him from his children and to ultimately defeat his legal rights to them.
The petitioner contends, inter alia, that the respondent seeks to
accomplish her goals primarily through manipulation of the children's
perceptions of him. He wishes to obtain custody, ostensibly to
counteract the detrimental psychological effects the respondent's
actions have had on his children, and to provide them with a more stable
atmosphere in which to develop. Mr. Allen specifically denies the
allegations that he sexually abused Dylan and characterizes them as part
of Ms. Farrow's extreme overreaction to his admitted relationship with
Ms. Previn.The respondent maintains that the petitioner has shown no genuine
parental interest in, nor any regard for, the children's welfare and
that any interest he has shown has been inappropriate and even harmful.
Respondent cites the fact that the petitioner has commenced and
maintained an intimate sexual relationship with her daughter Soon-Yi
Previn, which he has refused to curtail, despite the obvious ill effects
it has had on all of the children and the especially profound effect it
has had on Moses. It is also contended that petitioner has at best, an
inappropriately intense interest in, and at worst, an abusive
relationship with, the parties' daughter Dylan. Further, the respondent
maintains that petitioner's contact with the parties' biological son,
Satchel, is harmful to the child in that petitioner represents an
emotional threat and has on at least one occasion threatened physical
harm. Respondent contends that the petitioner's only motive in
commencing this proceeding was to retaliate against the allegations of
child sexual abuse made against him by Ms. Farrow.Certain salient facts concerning both Mr. Allen's and Ms. Farrow's
relationships to their children and to each other are not disputed.
Review of these facts in an objective manner and the conclusions that
flow from them, demonstrate that the determination of the IAS court as
to both custody and visitation is amply supported by the record before
this Court.From the inception of Mr. Allen's relationship with Ms. Farrow in 1980,
until a few months after the adoption of Dylan O'Sullivan Farrow on June
11, 1985, Mr. Allen wanted nothing to do with Ms. Farrow's children.
Although Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow attempted for approximately six months
to have a child of their own, Mr. Allen did so apparently only after
Ms. Farrow promised to assume full responsibility for the child.
Following the adoption however, Mr. Allen became interested in
developing a relationship with the newly adopted Dylan. While previously
he rarely spent time in the respondent's apartment, after the adoption
of Dylan he went to the respondent's Manhattan apartment more often,
visited Ms. Farrow's Connecticut home and even accompanied the Farrow
family on vacations to Europe. Allen also developed a relationship with
Moses Farrow, who had been adopted by the respondent in 1980 and was
seven years old at the time of Dylan's adoption. However, Allen remained
distant from Farrow's other six children.In 1986 Ms. Farrow expressed a desire to adopt another child. Mr. Allen,
while not enthusiastic at the prospect of the adoption of Dylan in
1985, was much more amenable to the idea in 1986. Before the adoption
could be completed Ms. Farrow became pregnant with the parties' son
Satchel. While the petitioner testified that he was happy at the idea of
becoming a father, the record supports the finding that Mr. Allen
showed little or no interest in the pregnancy. It is not disputed that
Ms. Farrow began to withdraw from Mr. Allen during the pregnancy and
that afterwards she did not wish Satchel to become attached to Mr.
Allen.According to Mr. Allen, Ms. Farrow became inordinately attached to the
newborn Satchel to the exclusion of the other children. He viewed this
as especially harmful to Dylan and began spending more time with her,
ostensibly to make up for the lack of attention shown her by Ms. Farrow
after the birth of Satchel. Mr. Allen maintains that his interest in and
affection for Dylan always has been paternal in nature and never
sexual. The various psychiatric experts who testified or otherwise
provided reports did not conclude that Allen's behavior toward Dylan
prior to August of 1992 was explicitly sexual in nature. However, the
clear consensus was that his interest in Dylan was abnormally intense in
that he made inordinate demands on her time and focused on her to the
exclusion of Satchel and Moses even when they were present.The record demonstrates that Ms. Farrow expressed concern to Allen about
his relationship with Dylan, and that Allen expressed his concern to
Ms. Farrow about her relationship with Satchel. In 1990 both Dylan and
Satchel were evaluated by clinical psychologists. Dr. Coates began
treatment of Satchel in 1990. In April of 1991 Dylan was referred to Dr.
Schultz, a clinical psychologist specializing in the treatment of young
children with serious emotional problems.In 1990 at about the same time that the parties were growing distant
from each other and expressing their concerns about the other's
relationship with their youngest children, Mr. Allen began acknowledging
Farrow's daughter Soon-Yi Previn. Previously he treated Ms. Previn in
the same way he treated Ms. Farrow's other children from her prior
marriage, rarely even speaking to them. In September of 1991 Ms. Previn
began to attend Drew College in New Jersey. In December 1991 two events
coincided. Mr. Allen's adoptions of Dylan and Moses were finalized and
Mr. Allen began his sexual relationship with their sister Soon-Yi
Previn.In January of 1992, Mr. Allen took the photographs of Ms. Previn, which
were discovered on the mantelpiece in his apartment by Ms. Farrow and
were introduced into evidence at the IAS proceeding. Mr. Allen in his
trial testimony stated that he took the photos at Ms. Previn's
suggestion and that he considered them erotic and not pornographic. We
have viewed the photographs and do not share Mr. Allen's
characterization of them. We find the fact that Mr. Allen took them at a
time when he was formally assuming a legal responsibility for two of
Ms. Previn's siblings to be totally unacceptable. The distinction Mr.
Allen makes between Ms. Farrow's other children and Dylan, Satchel and
Moses is lost on this Court. The children themselves do not draw the
same distinction that Mr. Allen does. This is sadly demonstrated by the
profound effect his relationship with Ms. Previn has had on the entire
family. Allen's testimony that the photographs of Ms. Previn ". . . were
taken, as I said before, between two consenting adults wanting to do
this . . ." demonstrates a chosen ignorance of his and Ms. Previn's
relationships to Ms. Farrow, his three children and Ms. Previn's other
siblings. His continuation of the relationship, viewed in the best
possible light, shows a distinct absence of judgment. It demonstrates to
this Court Mr. Allen's tendency to place inappropriate emphasis on his
own wants and needs and to minimize and even ignore those of his
children. At the very minimum, it demonstrates an absence of any
parenting skills.We recognize Mr. Allen's acknowledgment of the pain his relationship
with Ms. Previn has caused the family. We also note his testimony that
he tried to insulate the rest of the family from the "dispute" that
resulted, and tried to "deescalate the situation" by attempting to
"placate" Ms. Farrow. It is true that Ms. Farrow's failure to conceal
her feelings from the rest of the family and the acting out of her
feelings of betrayal and anger toward Mr. Allen enhanced the effect of
the situation on the rest of her family. We note though that the reasons
for her behavior, however prolonged and extreme, are clearly visible in
the record. On the other hand the record contains no acceptable
explanation for Allen's commencement of the sexual relationship with Ms.
Previn at the time he was adopting Moses and Satchel, or for the
continuation of that relationship at the time he was supposedly
experiencing the joys of fatherhood.While the petitioner's testimony regarding his attempts to de-escalate
the dispute and to insulate the family from it, displays a measure of
concern for his three children, it is clear that he should have realized
the inevitable consequences of his actions well before his relationship
with Ms. Previn became intimate. Allen's various inconsistent
statements to Farrow of his intentions regarding Ms. Previn and his
attempt to have Dr. Schultz explain the relationship to Dylan in such a
manner as to exonerate himself from any wrong doing, make it difficult
for this Court to find that his expressed concern for the welfare of the
family is genuine.As we noted above, Mr. Allen maintains that Ms. Farrow's allegations
concerning the sexual abuse of Dylan were fabricated by Ms. Farrow both
as a result of her rage over his relationship with Ms. Previn and as
part of her continued plan to alienate him from his children. However,
our review of the record militates against a finding that Ms. Farrow
fabricated the allegations without any basis. Unlike the court at IAS,
we do not consider the conclusions reached by Doctors Coates and Schultz
and by the Yale-New Haven team, to be totally unpersuasive. While the
tendency of Dylan to withdraw into a fantasy and the inconsistencies in
her account of the events of August 4, 1992, noted particularly by the
Yale-New Haven team, must be taken into account in the evaluation of
these serious allegations, the testimony given at trial by the
individuals caring for the children that day, the videotape of Dylan
made by Ms. Farrow the following day and the accounts of Dylan's
behavior toward Mr. Allen both before and after the alleged instance of
abuse, suggest that the abuse did occur. While the evidence in support
of the allegations remains inconclusive, it is clear that the
investigation of the charges in and of itself could not have left Dylan
unaffected.Any determination of issues of child custody or visitation must serve
the best interests of the child and that which will best promote the
child's welfare (Domestic Relations Law ? 70; Eschbach v Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167, 171, 451 N.Y.S.2d 658, 436 N.E.2d 1260; Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, 55 N.Y.2d 89, 93-94, 447 N.Y.S.2d 893,
432 N.E.2d 765). The existence of a prior arrangement of custody agreed
upon by the parties, should be given weighty but not absolute priority
in the absence of extraordinary circumstances (Matter of Nehra v Uhlar,
43 N.Y.2d 242, 251, 401 N.Y.S.2d 168, 372 N.E.2d 4). Such priority is
afforded in the belief that stability in a child's life is in the
child's best interests (Eschbach v Eschbach, supra, at 171). The court,
however is not bound by the existence of a prior agreement and has the
discretion to order changes in custody as well as other modifications
when the totality of circumstances warrants its doing so in the best
interests of the child (Eschbach, supra, at 172). Primary among those
circumstances is the quality of the home environment and the parental
guidance the custodial parent provides for the child (id.). It has long
been recognized that it is often in the child's best interests to
continue to live with his or her siblings (id. at 173). "While this,
too, is not an absolute, the stability and companionship to be gained
from keeping the children together is an important factor for the court
to consider" (id.).The weighing of the numerous factors to be considered "requires an
evaluation of the testimony, character and sincerity of all of the
parties involved in this type of dispute" (Eschbach, supra, at 173).
"Generally, such an evaluation can best be made by the trial court,
which has direct access to the parties . . . . Appellate Courts should
be reluctant to substitute their own evaluation of these subjective
factors for that of the nisi prius court (citations omitted), and if
they do, should articulate the reasons for so doing" (id at 173-174).It was noted by the IAS court that the psychiatric experts agreed that
Mr. Allen may be able to fulfill a positive role in Dylan's therapy. We
note specifically the opinion of Dr. Brodzinsky, the impartial expert
called by both parties, who concluded that contact with Mr. Allen is
necessary to Dylan's future development, but that initially any such
visitation should be conducted in a therapeutic context. The IAS court
structured that visitation accordingly and provided that a further
review of Allen's visitation with Dylan would be considered after an
evaluation of Dylan's progress.Although the investigation of the abuse allegations have not resulted in
a conclusive finding, all of the evidence received at trial supports
the determination as to custody and visitation with respect to this
child. There would be no beneficial purpose served in disturbing the
custody arrangement. Moreover, even if the abuse did not occur, it is
evident that there are issues concerning Mr. Allen's inappropriately
intense relationship with this child that can be resolved only in a
therapeutic setting. At the very least, the process of investigation
itself has left the relationship between Mr. Allen and Dylan severely
damaged. The consensus is that both Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow need to be
involved in the recovery process. The provision for further review of
the visitation arrangement embodied in the trial court's decision
adequately protects the petitioner's rights and interests at this time.With respect to Satchel, the IAS court denied the petitioner's request
for unsupervised visitation. While the court stated that it was not
concerned for Satchel's physical safety, it was concerned by Mr. Allen's
"demonstrated inability to understand the impact that his words and
deeds have upon the emotional well being of the children". We agree. The
record supports the conclusion that Mr. Allen may, if unsupervised,
influence Satchel inappropriately, and disregard the impact exposure to
Mr. Allen's relationship with Satchel's sister, Ms. Previn, would have
on the child. His failure to understand the effect of such exposure upon
Satchel as well as upon his other children is evidenced by his
statement on direct examination in which he stated:If you ask me personally, I would say the children, the children adore
Soon Yi, they adore me, they would be delighted, if you asked me this
personally, I would say they would be delighted and have fun with us,
being taken places with us. But, I don't want to give you my amateur
opinion on that. That's how I feel. And I know it counts for very
little.

The record indicates that Ms. Previn when not at college spends most of
her time with Mr. Allen. Contact between Ms. Previn and her siblings in
the context of the relationship with Mr. Allen would be virtually
unavoidable even if Mr. Allen chose to insulate his children from the
relationship. Expert medical testimony indicated that it would be
harmful for Ms. Previn not to be reintegrated into the family. However,
the inquiry here concerns the bests interests of Dylan, Moses and
Satchel. Their best interests would clearly be served by contact with
their sister Soon-Yi, personally and not in Mr. Allen's presence. Seeing
both Ms. Previn and Mr. Allen together in the unsupervised context
envisioned by Mr. Allen would, at this early stage, certainly be
detrimental to the best interests of the children.It has been held that the desires of the child are to be considered, but
that it must be kept in mind that those desires can be manipulated
(Friederwitzer v Friederwitzer, supra, at 94). In considering the
custody and visitation decision concerning Moses, who is now a teenager,
we cannot ignore his expressed desires. The record shows that he had a
beneficial relationship with the petitioner prior to the events of
December 1991. However, that relationship has been gravely damaged.
While Moses' feelings were certainly affected by his mother's obvious
pain and anger, we concluded that it would not be in Moses' best
interests to be compelled to see Mr. Allen, if he does not wish to.Therefore, we hold that in view of the totality of the circumstances,
the best interests of these children would be served by remaining
together in the custody of Ms. Farrow, with the parties abiding by the
visitation schedule established by the trial court.With respect to the award of counsel fees we note that the record
demonstrates that Mr. Allen's resources far outpace those of Ms. Farrow.
Additionally, we note the relative lack of merit of Mr. Allen's
position in commencing this proceeding for custody. It became apparent,
during oral argument, that there was serious doubt that Mr. Allen truly
desired custody. It has been held that "in exercising its discretionary
power to award counsel fees, a court should review the financial
circumstances of both parties together with all the other circumstances
of the case, which may include the relative merit of the parties'
positions" (DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 N.Y.2d 879, 881). We find no abuse of discretion in the court's award of counsel fees in this case.Accordingly, the judgment of Supreme Court, New York County (Elliot
Wilk, J.), entered July 13, 1993, which, inter alia, denied the
petitioner Woody Allen's request for custody of Moses Amadeus Farrow,
Dylan O'Sullivan Farrow, and Satchel Farrow, set forth the terms of
visitation between the petitioner and his children and awarded Ms.
Farrow counsel fees, is affirmed in all respects, without costs.All concur except Carro and Wallach, JJ who dissent in part in an Opinion by Carro, J.CARRO, J. (dissenting in part)I agree with the majority's conclusions, except for the affirmance of
the order of visitation with respect to Mr. Allen's son Satchel, which I
find unduly restrictive.

Woody Allen - Alleged Sex Offender

There is strong evidence in the record from neutral observers that Mr.
Allen and Satchel basically have a warm and loving father-son
relationship, but that their relationship is in jeopardy, in large
measure because Mr. Allen is being estranged and alienated from his son
by the current custody and visitation arrangement. Frances Greenberg and
Virginia Lehman, two independent social workers employed to oversee
visitation with Satchel, testified how "Mr. Allen would welcome Satchel
by hugging him, telling him how much he loved him, and how much he
missed him." Also described by both supervisors "was a kind of sequence
that Mr. Allen might say, I love you as much as the river, and Satchel
would say something to the effect that I love you as much as New York
City * * * then Mr. Allen might say, I love you as much as the stars,
and Satchel would say, I love you as much as the universe." Sadly, there
was also testimony from those witnesses that Satchel had told Mr.
Allen: "I like you, but I am not supposed to love you;" that when Mr.
Allen asked Satchel if he would send him a postcard from a planned trip
to California with Ms. Farrow, Satchel said "I can't [because] Mommy
won't let me;" and on one occasion when Satchel indicated that he wanted
to stay with Mr. Allen longer than the allotted two-hour visit,
"Satchel did say he could not stay longer, that his mother had told him
that two hours was sufficient." Perhaps most distressing, Satchel
"indicated to Mr. Allen that he was seeing a doctor that was going to
help him not to see Mr. Allen anymore, and he indicated that he was
supposed to be seeing this doctor perhaps eight or ten times, at the end
of which he would no longer have to see Mr. Allen."In contrast to what apparently is being expressed by Ms. Farrow about
Mr. Allen to Satchel, Mr. Allen has been reported to say only positive
things to Satchel about Ms. Farrow, and conveys only loving regards to
Moses and Dylan through Satchel. Thus I find little evidence in the
record to support the majority's conclusion that "Mr. Allen may, if
unsupervised, influence Satchel inappropriately, and disregard the
impact exposure to Mr. Allen's relationship with Satchel's sister, Ms.
Previn, would have on the child."The majority's quotation of Mr. Allen's testimony with respect to
Soon-Yi in support of its conclusion respecting visitation should be
viewed in the context of Dr. David Brodzinsky's testimony. Dr.
Brodzinsky is an expert in adoption with considerable experience in
court-related evaluations of custody and visitation disputes, who was
retained by the guardian for Dylan and Moses in a pending Surrogate's
Court proceeding involving the parties. Dr. Brodzinsky was thus a
completely neutral expert, jointly called by Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow,
and he had extensive contact with the relevant family members and mental
health professionals and reviewed the pertinent reports and transcripts
prior to testifying. It was his clinical judgment that Mr. Allen had
more awareness of the consequences of his actions than he was able to
articulate in the adversarial process, and he was optimistic about Mr.
Allen's ability to accept his share of responsibility for what had taken
place in light of his love for his children, his capacity for
perspective-taking and empathy, and his motivation and openness toward
the ongoing therapeutic process. In addition, Dr. Susan Coates,
Satchel's therapist until December 1992, and the only expert to testify
about Satchel's mental health, stated that Mr. Allen's parental
relationship with Satchel was essential to Satchel's healthy
development."It is the firmly established policy of this State * * * that, wherever
possible, the best interests of a child lie in his being nurtured and
guided by both of his natural parents." (Daghir v Daghir, 82 A.D.2d 191, 193, 441 N.Y.S.2d 494 [MOLLEN, P.J.], affd 56 N.Y.2d 938, 453 N.Y.S.2d 609,
439 N.E.2d 324.) "Simply stated, a parent may not be deprived of his or
her right to reasonable and meaningful access to the children by the
marriage unless exceptional circumstances have been presented to the
court * * * [i.e.] where either the exercise of such right is inimical
to the welfare of the children or the parent has in some manner
forfeited his or her right to such access." (Strahl v Strahl, 66 A.D.2d 571, 574, 414 N.Y.S.2d 184 [TITONE, J.P.], affd 49 N.Y.2d 1036, 429 N.Y.S.2d 635, 407 N.E.2d 479.)I do not believe that Mr. Allen's visitation with Satchel for a mere two
hours, three times a week, under supervision, is reasonable and
meaningful under the circumstances, or that exceptional circumstances
are presented that warrant such significant restriction on visitation
with Satchel. Mr. Allen and Satchel clearly need substantial quality
time together to nurture and renew their bonds and to foster a warm and
loving father-son relationship. Obviously this cannot occur overnight;
but more significantly, it is almost inconceivable that it will occur
even over an extended period of time if visitation is limited to three
two-hour periods per week under the supervision of strangers, as ordered
by the trial court and affirmed by the majority. Accordingly I would
modify the judgment appealed from to provide that Mr. Allen shall have
unsupervised visitation with Satchel for four hours, three times weekly,
plus alternate Saturdays and Sundays for the entire day, plus alternate
holidays to be agreed upon by the parties (see, Cesario v Cesario, 168 A.D.2d 911, 565 N.Y.S.2d 653; Shink v Shink, 140 A.D.2d 506, 528 N.Y.S.2d 847; Armando v Armando, 114 A.D.2d 875, 495 N.Y.S.2d 192).Motion 104 by respondent-respondent to strike portions of appellant's reply brief is denied.Cross-Motion 229 by appellant for costs and counsel fees in responding to Motion 104 denied.ENTER: May 12, 1994.19940512

NEW YORK –– If a truly great artist engages in a truly
awful crime, should our feelings about the art mitigate our feelings
about the crime?

That is just one of the gut-churning questions
being asked across the Web, as people consider the predicament of
Oscar-winning director Roman Polanski, sitting now in a Swiss jail and
facing possible extradition to the United States for fleeing the country
more than 30 years ago after he pleaded guilty in a sex case involving a
13-year-old girl.

And to many people, the answer is clear: Brilliant filmmaker or not, the
man violated a young girl and needs to face justice for it.

"I
wish to God he hadn't done it," said Frances Willington, a longtime
Polanski fan and one of many who vented her frustrations online.

"I
think he's the greatest film director of my generation," said
Willington, who is British, in a follow-up interview from her home in
southern France. But she was incensed by the immediate embrace of
Polanski by some French cultural leaders, including the culture
minister, who expressed outrage that Polanski was being "thrown to the
lions."

"They're calling on people to sign a petition when this
man is escaping the law!" said Willington, who works in marketing. "I
don't care if he's made great films. I don't believe that cultural and
artistic ability exempts you from being morally correct."

Though
it was impossible to measure the balance of sentiment, on most sites
there seemed to be many more postings calling for Polanski to face
justice — particularly from people in the United States, but also from
other countries.

Many mentioned the sordid details of the case, which have grown foggy over time but have now resurfaced for all to see."All
you fans need to read the court transcripts on thesmokinggun.com,"
wrote one poster, Paul Cooper, on a Facebook page devoted to Polanski.
"Roman is a pig. Read and learn."Polanski was accused of plying
the 13-year-old girl, Samantha Geimer, with champagne and Quaaludes
during a modeling shoot in 1977 and raping her. He was initially
indicted on six felony counts, including rape by use of drugs, child
molesting and sodomy.He agreed to plead guilty to the lesser
charge of unlawful sexual intercourse. In exchange, the judge agreed to
drop the remaining charges and commute the sentence to the 42 days
already served. But Polanski fled the country Feb. 1, 1978, the day he
was scheduled to be sentenced, after hearing that the judge planned to
add more prison time to the sentence.Geimer long ago identified
herself, and she has joined in Polanski's bid for dismissal. She
testified at the time that Polanski forced himself on her — which he
acknowledged in his guilty plea — but has said she forgives him and
wants the ordeal to be over.Meanwhile, the director of
"Rosemary's Baby," "Chinatown" and "The Pianist," which won him a best
director Oscar, is in jail, arrested just as he arrived in Zurich to be
honored at a film festival — a development that stunned his colleagues.A petition was immediately organized calling for his release, signed by
prominent fellow directors including Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese,
Darren Aronofsky, Terry Gilliam, Jonathan Demme, Ethan Coen and David
Lynch, as well as actresses Penelope Cruz and Tilda Swinton.Actress
Debra Winger, presiding over the Zurich festival jury, complained:
"This fledgling festival has been unfairly exploited." She also blamed
Swiss authorities for their "Philistine collusion." And producer Harvey
Weinstein said in a statement: "We are calling every filmmaker we can to
help fix this terrible situation." (Representatives for Winger, Demme
and Allen did not respond to requests for comment, and Weinstein and
Aronofsky declined.)But it would be a mistake to assume that the
American figures on the list speak for all Hollywood, said Richard
Walter, a longtime industry observer and a screenwriting professor at
UCLA."Because they're celebrities, their voices are heard much
more than others," Walter said. "But there's not a shred of evidence
that the majority of people in the entertainment business are
sympathetic with Polanski's position."To another observer, the
support from Hollywood elite is a case of colleagues closing ranks.
"This is people attempting to protect their own," said Todd Boyd,
professor of popular culture at the University of Southern California.In
online postings, some people noted that Polanski's difficult past must
be taken into account. He escaped the Krakow ghetto during the
Holocaust, lost his mother at Auschwitz, and later in life endured the
murder of his wife, Sharon Tate, by followers of Charles Manson.Other defenders said they understood why Polanski had fled the country, and noted that the victim had already forgiven Polanski."In
a way, I don't blame Roman for fleeing," wrote Donna Mummery, 52, of
Shreveport, La., on Facebook. "Let him enjoy the rest of his life now.
"He's done a lot of good since that hard time in his life."Miami filmmaker Rodrigo Diaz-McVeigh agreed, adding that Polanski has shown over the years that he is not a danger to anyone.

"He's
not a threat to any child," said Diaz-McVeigh, 22. "He's gone through
so much in his life. And then he went to Switzerland to do good deeds."
Diaz-McVeigh called himself a Polanski fan. "I just love his films," he
said.

But most people seemed to think this was the moment to
separate Polanski the man from Polanski the artist — just as many did in
June, when Michael Jackson died, leaving memories both of his
professional greatness and his darker personal side.

"I still
dance to Michael Jackson's songs," wrote commentator Susan Jane Gilman
on npr.org. "Just as I buy Rolling Stones albums, watch Woody Allen
films and adore Hemingway's novels. The fact that many of these artists
have treated women abominably and some have been accused of molesting
minors does nothing to diminish their art in my eyes."

"Great
achievements should not be judged on the basis of personal conduct," she
wrote from Geneva. "But nor should a person's conduct be excused by
their achievements, either. At the end of the day, would we be OK with
our 13-year-old daughter being drugged and raped by a 44-year-old?"

As celebrity scandals go, it’s probably second only to the O.J. trial: Woody Allen leaving Mia Farrow, his girlfriend and muse of 14 years, for her adopted teenage daughter Soon-Yi.

That was way back in 1992, and what was unthinkable then has long since come to pass: Woody Allen has been forgiven by the public at large. His most recent film, “Midnight in Paris,” has made over $56 million at the US box office to date — his highest-grossing film ever. Along with Elaine May and Ethan Coen, he contributed a one-act play to Broadway’s “Relatively Speaking,” which opened this past October. He was recently the subject of a worshipful, two-part “American Masters” special on PBS.

Farrow, meanwhile, largely gave up acting to focus on her humanitarian work, with a special interest in the war-torn regions of Africa. In 2000, she became one of UNICEF’s most prominent ambassadors; in 2008, with a Wall Street Journal op-ed co-authored by her son Ronan, she got Steven Spielberg to step down from the advisory board for the Olympics in Beijing over human-rights abuses.

Today, however, it’s Ronan who’s the star. He is the former couple’s only biological child, and was originally named Satchel; Farrow changed his name after the split, as she did with Dylan, the daughter she and Allen adopted together. (She is now Malone.)

The young adult that Ronan has become — he turned 24 on Dec. 19 — is a testament to Farrow’s parenting: A child genius, he was, at 15, the youngest student ever to graduate from Bard College. He’s also a graduate of Yale Law School and has worked for the US State Department since 2009. This past November, he was named a Rhodes Scholar.

Ronan has had no contact with Woody Allen since the split. “He’s my father married to my sister,” Ronan has said. “That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression . . . I lived with all these adopted children, so they are my family. To say Soon-Yi was not my sister is an insult to all adopted children.”

If Farrow finds Allen’s great, nearly untrammeled success galling, she will not say. Instead, she has largely withdrawn from public life, finding pleasure in her quiet victories.

Raising her and Allen’s only son to be secure and capable, modest in his own abilities and achievements, well-adjusted despite all his early childhood trauma — is the kind of contentment, one suspects, that Woody Allen will never know.

Farrow and Ronan have always been particularly close. He, too, has been a UNICEF ambassador, and as early as 2001 began traveling throughout Africa, lobbying the United Nations for humanitarian aid and writing op-eds in The Washington Post, Boston Herald and International Herald Tribune, among others.

Curiously, it was Ronan who got his mother to return to acting.

“I’d wanted Mia from the get-go,” writer-director Todd Solondz tells The Post. He approached Farrow last year about starring in his new film, “Dark Horse,” but considered it a long shot.

“Really, it’s because her son Ronan is a big admirer of my work,” Solondz says. “He said, ‘Mom, you’ve gotta do it!’ Without reading the script, she agreed. Because of him.”

In the film, which premiered at the Venice Film Festival this past September, Mia plays Phyllis, mother to a grown man who lives at home and collects toys. Given her relationship with Allen — whom she has described as something of a child-man — the role wasn’t much of a stretch.

Mia Farrow met Woody Allen in the fall of 1979; she was 34, a mother to seven children, and twice divorced (married to Frank Sinatra at 19, then to Andre Previn, himself married when they met). Allen was 43, also twice divorced, an Academy Award-winning writer-director, professional humorist and neurotic who told Farrow he had “zero interest in kids” on one of their first dates.

In her 1997 memoir, “What Falls Away,” Farrow recounts Allen’s multiple failings as a partner and a father: Allen would have his secretary call her to make dates. He would rarely call her by her name. Upon the adoption of their first child, he tells her, “Look, I don’t care about the baby. What I care about is my work.”

Her friend Leonard Gershe told Vanity Fair that Woody often disparaged Farrow’s talent, saying “she was only good in his pictures, not anybody else’s. Nobody would ever hire her again.”

He and Farrow never lived together — she and the children stayed in her massive Upper West Side apartment, Allen on the Upper East Side — and though Allen saw the children every day, Farrow has said he mostly ignored them.

“One of my greatest regrets,” she has said, “is that I permitted this to continue through 12 irreplaceable years of their childhoods.”

No one’s quite sure when Allen’s affair with Soon-Yi, whom Farrow had adopted with ex-husband Previn in 1978, began. As a girl, Soon-Yi reportedly told her mother that Allen was “nasty and ugly,” but by the summer of 1991, he was taking her to Knick games and encouraging her to pursue an a career as an actress.

This was heady stuff, no doubt, for a girl who had been rescued by Farrow from the slums of Seoul, Korea. Her mother was a prostitute whose primary form of discipline was to slam a door against Soon-Yi’s head; eventually, she abandoned Soon-Yi on the street.

Farrow spent a year waiting to adopt Soon-Yi, who had lived through such neglect and abuse that she was nearly feral, unable to speak or recognize herself in the mirror. No one even knew how old she was, but when Farrow got her back to the States, a bone scan determined she was somewhere between 5 and 7 years old.

Farrow put her in private school, and though Soon-Yi made great strides, she struggled: The early trauma she’d suffered resulted in learning disabilities, difficulty socializing and showing affection. It’s been reported that she has an IQ of less than 100.

That Woody had taken an interest in the girl must have seemed — while out of character — utterly harmless.

In late 1991, while shooting Allen’s “Husbands and Wives” — in which Woody and Mia played a married couple who split up after the Woody character meets a 21-year-old girl — that Mia discovered nude Polaroids of Soon-Yi on Allen’s mantelpiece.

Incredibly, she agreed to finish the film, shooting the breakup scene in the immediate aftermath of her discovery. And for months, she went back and forth on whether to reconcile with Allen. “She was in denial, obviously,” her sister Tisa told Vanity Fair. “Her whole life was tied up with this man.”

For his part, Allen couldn’t see what the big deal was. As he so famously said: “The heart wants what it wants.”

Farrow unloaded her New York City apartment — which had belonged to her mother, actress Maureen O’Sullivan, and which figured prominently in Allen’s 1986 film, “Hannah and Her Sisters” — years ago. She and Allen went through a bruising custody battle, during which she accused him of molesting their daughter, Dylan. (The case was dropped in 1993.)

Today, Farrow is known to have 15 children, and it’s believed one still lives with her at her Connecticut farmhouse.

She has not publicly dated anyone since her split from Allen, although in 2008 she alluded to a budding relationship with — of all people — the novelist Philip Roth, another misanthropic Jewish humorist who has issues with women.

Farrow, in fact, seems to have spectacularly poor taste in men: She married Sinatra when she was 19 and he 51. When, against Sinatra’s wishes, she took the lead in Roman Polanski’s “Rosemary’s Baby,” Sinatra had her served with divorce papers on set.

She has retained great affection for Polanski, despite his conviction, in 1977, of drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl in 1977. Farrow has been one of his staunchest defenders, testifying on his behalf in a 2005 libel suit and appearing in the 2008 documentary “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired.”

Even her intimates can’t explain why Farrow — otherwise described as incredibly bright, warm and well read — is drawn to such men. Freudians might look to her relationship with her father, the director John Farrow, a heavy drinker and philanderer who, in many ways, Sinatra resembled. It’s a theory she has always dismissed, saying her attraction to Sinatra — long-suspected to have serious Mafia ties — was based on his “very strong moral structure.”

Farrow’s mother was also a drinker, and despite her husband’s well-known carousing, they had seven children together.

At age 9, Farrow contracted polio and spent three weeks in a hospital, partly in an iron lung. She was never the same.

“I was 9 when my childhood ended,” she wrote in “What Falls Away.”

In 1958, her 17-year-old brother, Michael, died in a plane crash. “My parents are Irish, and they started drinking, and my father couldn’t work again,” she has said. “We felt his heart just broke. He died at 58, after a series of heart attacks.”

In June of 1998, her mother died at the age of 87, and it was the first in a decade of devastating losses. March of 2000, her adopted daughter Tam died of heart disease at 19. Another adopted daughter, Lark, died of AIDS on Christmas Day, 2008; she was 35. In June 2009, Farrow’s brother Patrick committed suicide at his home in Vermont; he was 66.

“My faith has helped me through many difficult times,” she said in 2006.

Despite the many tragedies she has survived, her great humanitarian work, and the spectacular way her son has turned out, she knows she will always be defined by the Allen-Soon-Yi scandal.

She has had no contact with either of them to this day but has said she is willing to forgive. “I’ve got over it, you know,” she said in 2006. “You can get over almost anything. You just can’t go on mourning forever. And so I’ve moved on.”

The son she had with Allen, though, doesn’t feel the same way. “I cannot see him,” Ronan has said. “I cannot have a relationship with my father and be morally consistent.”

Epstein put his arm around the cradle-robbing director-actor and quietly talked as the pair strolled on the Upper East Side Sunday with Allen’s 35-years-younger wife, Soon-Yi, in tow.

“[Epstein] was hugging him and talking close to his ear . . . [He] had his arm on Woody’s shoulder,’’ a spy told The Post.

“They appeared to have been walking together’’ along Madison Avenue beforehand, and the three then started “talking and laughing’’ as they neared Epstein’s East 71st Street town house, the source said.

Allen, 77, and his 42-year-old wife — the adopted daughter of ex-love Mia Farrow — live on East 70th Street.

They all went into Epstein’s building after the walk, the source said.

Epstein’s conviction hasn’t apparently put a damper on his high-flying lifestyle: State records show the convicted sex offender lists his addresses as St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands, Paris, Palm Beach in Florida and on New York’s Upper East Side.

Among his current vehicles, records show Epstein counts a pair of Cadillac Escalades and a Bentley Arnage in New York, another Escalade and a Mercedes-Benz in Florida, and another Escalade in the Virgin Islands.

A rep for Allen did not respond to a phone call or e-mail seeking comment about the trio’s afternoon out, and no one answered 60-year-old Epstein’s door when a Post reporter knocked Monday afternoon.

It’s not the first time that Epstein and Allen have been seen together.

Allen was a guest at a celeb-packed party Epstein threw at the town house for his old pal, Britain’s Prince Andrew, in December 2010.

Allen was said to have asked the prince about his ex-wife, Sarah Ferguson, and Andrew replied, “She’s very well — we live together.”

Epstein, a former hedge-fund big, did time in 2008 under a deal in which he confessed to two counts of soliciting a minor for prostitution and soliciting prostitution.

His victim was identified in court papers as a 14-year-old girl identified only as “Jane Doe.”

Epstein was accused of paying the youngster — one of a string of girls who allegedly visited him — $200 for a massage at his Palm Beach retreat in 2005.

And Farrow once accused Allen of molesting their then 7-year-old adopted daughter, but the allegations were never proven.

Woody Allen has been spotted strolling on New York's Upper East Side with millionaire child sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein, who served time for hiring minors to 'massage' him at his Florida mansion.

A source told The New York Post's Page Six the former hedgefunder was 'hugging (Allen) and taking close to his ear' on Sunday, with the eccentric film director's effective step daughter-turned-much younger wife, Soon-Yi, in tow.

'[He] had his arm on Woody's shoulder,' the spy added.

The three were walking together along Madison Avenue and began 'talking and laughing' as they neared Epstein's $50 million East 71st Street town house and went inside, the source told The Post.

Allen, 77, who lives on East 70th Street with his 42-year-old wife, has rubbed shoulders with convicted sex-offender before.

The sometime actor was a guest at a celebrity-filled soiree Epstein threw for his best pal Britain's Prince Andrew in December 2010.

Epstein served 13 months of an 18 month sentence for soliciting a 14-year-old for prostitution.

In court papers, the victim was only identified as 'Jane Doe.'

At one point, Epstein was facing 10 years to life on multiple sex offenses, The Post reported.

Court documents in that case claimed he routinely sought out underage girls and paid them $200 to $1,000 for sexual massages in his homes in Palm Beach, Florida, and Manhattan.

But the financier avoided a longer possible sentence after he signed a secret non-prosecution deal under which the government agreed to drop its investigation into the string of sex-crime allegations if Epstein confessed to prostitution felonies in Florida state court.

Epstein settled more than a dozen lawsuits brought by underage girls since his sentence, with many recieving payouts in excess of $1 million.

In 2011, a New York judge ruled Epstein should be listed as a level 3 sex-offender - the highest and most dangerous level.

This was despite the millionaire joking to The Post that his crimes were comparable to 'stealing a bagel.'

(CNN) -- Ronan Farrow has reopened a can of worms Woody Allen probably would have just as soon kept sealed.

In addition to a speech by Diane Keaton, a frequent Allen co-star, a Golden Globes tribute Sunday night featured a short film of Allen's greatest hits. But the film was missing one thing, tweeted Farrow.

"Missed the Woody Allen tribute," he wrote, "did they put the part where a woman publicly confirmed he molested her at age 7 before or after Annie Hall?"

Ronan Farrow disses Woody Allen's Golden Globes tribute

(Allen wasn't at the Globes; he's known for avoiding awards shows, for many years skipping the Oscars to keep a regular musical gig at a New York jazz club.)

The tweet once again exposes one of the darkest episodes of Allen's life -- one that had seemingly vanished from the headlines in recent years, as the filmmaker's career has been revitalized by a series of well-reviewed, award-winning films, including "Match Point" and "Midnight in Paris."

In 1992, in the wake of an affair between Allen and Soon-Yi Previn -- Farrow's adopted daughter with composer Andre Previn -- the filmmaker was accused by Farrow of molesting their young daughter Dylan. A court found the accusations inconclusive, but the scandal permanently damaged Allen's image -- that of a neurotic, but amusing schlub with a talent for slapstick and witty one-liners.

Legacy of a scandal

Indeed, until the scandal hit, Allen was generally received warmly by the general public, even if his New York-centric, sometimes thorny comedies appealed only to a fairly narrow audience. (As a seemingly autobiographical line in 1980's "Stardust Memories" pointed out, the public tended to like his "earlier, funnier movies.")

He was easily caricatured -- not least by himself, since he always maintained his screen persona was just that, a persona -- and waseven the subject of a comic strip for several years.

Allen responded to the scandal by denying the Dylan accusations and saying that his relationship with Mia Farrow, which had been painted in storybook colors by the press, was not actually all that strong. As usual, he immersed himself in his work, maintaining his movie-per-year schedule and generally avoiding the limelight. Some of his mid-'90s movies, notably "Deconstructing Harry" and "Celebrity," were unpleasantly acidic views of public life.

He did marry Soon-Yi Previn in 1997, and after the marriage came a slightly more public Woody Allen. The couple was the focus of a 1997 Barbara Kopple documentary, "Wild Man Blues," which portrayed a generally happy pair. Allen was also the subject of a 2011 Robert Weide film, "Woody Allen: A Documentary," which briskly addressed Farrow's allegations from Allen's point of view.

However, the scandal has always been near the surface, and this is the second time in recent months that it's made a forthright appearance. In a November Vanity Fair article, Allen was condemned by Mia Farrow's children, especially Dylan, who has since changed her name.

"I'm scared of him, his image," Dylan told writer Maureen Orth. Another child, Fletcher Previn, told Orth he had removed Allen's image from both family photos and videos.

Ronan Farrow's point

And Sunday's tweet isn't the first time Ronan Farrow has aimed a poison pixel at Allen.

"Happy father's day -- or as they call it in my family, happy brother-in-law's day," he tweeted last June, referring to the Soon-Yi affair.

But publicist Howard Bragman, vice-chair of Reputation.com, doesn't think Allen will be hurt.

"I don't think we can expect a lot of traction on this thing," he said. "If this was a guy who was spending a lot of time getting press for himself, it might bite him in the ass. But he's not investing his time in (publicity) -- he's a filmmaker."

Ronan Farrow also comes out ahead. He recently signed a deal with MSNBC for a talk show, so the publicity will keep his name in the headlines, said Bragman.

"He's clearly his mother's son -- she's made her point of view known on this -- and he's also got a new forum in terms of a TV show, so this does him good in terms of attention," he said.

Allen generally doesn't comment to the press, but in a 1992 "60 Minutes" interview, he said that allegations he abused Dylan were "insane."

Woody Allen's lawyer Elkan Abramowitz said in the November Vanity Fair article that Allen still denies the allegations.

An e-mail to Woody Allen's representative requesting comment on recent events wasn't immediately returned on Monday.

A forgiving town

Hollywood is a forgiving town -- even for a defiantly un-Hollywood type like Woody Allen.

Roman Polanski, who fled to Europe in 1977 after pleading guilty to unlawful sex with a minor, won a best director Oscar for 2002's "The Pianist." In 1951, producer Walter Wanger shot and wounded his wife's agent, believing an affair was going on; he served four months and went back to producing, including "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."

Countless other stars have engaged in sordid behavior and paid no price worse than public disapproval. For their supporters, it's the art, not the artist.

"It's a complicated question, made even more so by the idiosyncratic relationship between each artist's body of work and personality," wrote Amanda Marcotte in Slate.

Allen has maintained the art wins out.

"All the success over it or the rejection, none of that really matters because in the end, the thing will survive or not survive on its merits," said Keaton in her speech, quoting Allen.

Still, for Allen, known for his jokes and aphorisms -- "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying," goes one of the best known -- it's perhaps ironic that one particular quotation attached to the scandal may end up the squirmy centerpiece of his biography.

Interviewed by Time magazine in 1992 about the Soon-Yi affair, he leaned (perhaps unawares) on an Emily Dickinson line. "The heart," he said, "wants what it wants."

But even more striking, given the filmmaker's lack of concern for public opinion, is the original line, which is taken from an 1862 Dickinson letter.

"The heart wants what it wants," Dickinson wrote. "Or else it does not care."

Dylan Farrow has published an account of the sexual assault she experienced at the hands of her adoptive father Woody Allen on Nicholas Kristof's blog. This is the first time Farrow herself has publicly written about her experiences, which occurred throughout her childhood.

Allen was never found guilty of sexually assaulting his adopted daughter, but Farrow and her family have maintained their accusations. The controversy re-entered the public consciousness during this year's Golden Globes, when Allen was given an lifetime achievement award.

Farrow describes the way Allen manipulated her both physically and psychologically:

These things happened so often, so routinely, so skillfully hidden from a mother that would have protected me had she known, that I thought it was normal. I thought this was how fathers doted on their daughters. But what he did to me in the attic felt different.

She goes on to implicate the actors who have starred in Allen's films:

What if it had been your child, Cate Blanchett? Louis CK? Alec Baldwin? What if it had been you, Emma Stone? Or you, Scarlett Johansson? You knew me when I was a little girl, Diane Keaton. Have you forgotten me?

(A note from Nicholas Kristof: In 1993, accusations that Woody Allen had abused his adoptive daughter, Dylan Farrow, filled the headlines, part of a sensational story about the celebrity split between Allen and his girlfriend, Mia Farrow. This is a case that has been written about endlessly, but this is the first time that Dylan Farrow herself has written about it in public. It’s important to note that Woody Allen was never prosecuted in this case and has consistently denied wrongdoing; he deserves the presumption of innocence. So why publish an account of an old case on my blog? Partly because the Golden Globe lifetime achievement award to Allen ignited a debate about the propriety of the award. Partly because the root issue here isn’t celebrity but sex abuse. And partly because countless people on all sides have written passionately about these events, but we haven’t fully heard from the young woman who was at the heart of them. I’ve written a column about this, but it’s time for the world to hear Dylan’s story in her own words.)

What’s your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we’d go to Paris and I’d be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains.

For as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I didn’t like. I didn’t like how often he would take me away from my mom, siblings and friends to be alone with him. I didn’t like it when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn’t like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear. I didn’t like it when he would place his head in my naked lap and breathe in and breathe out. I would hide under beds or lock myself in the bathroom to avoid these encounters, but he always found me. These things happened so often, so routinely, so skillfully hidden from a mother that would have protected me had she known, that I thought it was normal. I thought this was how fathers doted on their daughters. But what he did to me in the attic felt different. I couldn’t keep the secret anymore.

When I asked my mother if her dad did to her what Woody Allen did to me, I honestly did not know the answer. I also didn’t know the firestorm it would trigger. I didn’t know that my father would use his sexual relationship with my sister to cover up the abuse he inflicted on me. I didn’t know that he would accuse my mother of planting the abuse in my head and call her a liar for defending me. I didn’t know that I would be made to recount my story over and over again, to doctor after doctor, pushed to see if I’d admit I was lying as part of a legal battle I couldn’t possibly understand. At one point, my mother sat me down and told me that I wouldn’t be in trouble if I was lying – that I could take it all back. I couldn’t. It was all true. But sexual abuse claims against the powerful stall more easily. There were experts willing attack my credibility. There were doctors willing to gaslight an abused child.

After a custody hearing denied my father visitation rights, my mother declined to pursue criminal charges, despite findings of probable cause by the State of Connecticut – due to, in the words of the prosecutor, the fragility of the “child victim.” Woody Allen was never convicted of any crime. That he got away with what he did to me haunted me as I grew up. I was stricken with guilt that I had allowed him to be near other little girls. I was terrified of being touched by men. I developed an eating disorder. I began cutting myself. That torment was made worse by Hollywood. All but a precious few (my heroes) turned a blind eye. Most found it easier to accept the ambiguity, to say, “who can say what happened,” to pretend that nothing was wrong. Actors praised him at awards shows. Networks put him on TV. Critics put him in magazines. Each time I saw my abuser’s face – on a poster, on a t-shirt, on television – I could only hide my panic until I found a place to be alone and fall apart.

Last week, Woody Allen was nominated for his latest Oscar. But this time, I refuse to fall apart. For so long, Woody Allen’s acceptance silenced me. It felt like a personal rebuke, like the awards and accolades were a way to tell me to shut up and go away. But the survivors of sexual abuse who have reached out to me – to support me and to share their fears of coming forward, of being called a liar, of being told their memories aren’t their memories – have given me a reason to not be silent, if only so others know that they don’t have to be silent either.

Today, I consider myself lucky. I am happily married. I have the support of my amazing brothers and sisters. I have a mother who found within herself a well of fortitude that saved us from the chaos a predator brought into our home.

But others are still scared, vulnerable, and struggling for the courage to tell the truth. The message that Hollywood sends matters for them.

What if it had been your child, Cate Blanchett? Louis CK? Alec Baldwin? What if it had been you, Emma Stone? Or you, Scarlett Johansson? You knew me when I was a little girl, Diane Keaton. Have you forgotten me?

Woody Allen is a living testament to the way our society fails the survivors of sexual assault and abuse.

So imagine your seven-year-old daughter being led into an attic by Woody Allen. Imagine she spends a lifetime stricken with nausea at the mention of his name. Imagine a world that celebrates her tormenter.

"The message that Hollywood sends matters," writes Dylan Farrow in a wrenching New York Times Op-Ed recounting a childhood of sexual abuse at the hands of her adoptive father, filmmaker Woody Allen.

Farrow, a 28-year-old writer and artist, is speaking out for the first time about the notorious 1992 allegations that Woody Allen had molested her when she was seven.

"[W]hen I was seven years old," Farrow writes, "Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me."

These allegations first surfaced during the firestorm breakup of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow in 1993, after Justice Elliott Wilk of the State Supreme Court of New York awarded Farrow custody of their three children, Moses, Dylan and Ronan (then Satchel). According to a report in the Times, the judge wrote "a scathing 33-page decision" and "denounced Mr. Allen for carrying on an affair with one of Ms. Farrow's daughters, trying to pit family members against one another and lacking knowledge of the most basic aspects of his children's lives."

It continued:

The judge also denied Mr. Allen immediate visiting rights with his 7-year-old daughter, Dylan Farrow. Last summer Ms. Farrow accused the 57-year-old film maker of molesting the child. Justice Wilk said it was unlikely that Mr. Allen could be prosecuted for sexual abuse based on the evidence. But while a team of experts concluded that Dylan was not abused, the judge said he found the evidence inconclusive.

Dylan Farrow, who now lives in Florida under a pseudonym, was offered NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof's blog to limn her side of the story after Allen's recent Golden Globe lifetime achievement award raised questions about his worthiness. On the night of the Globes ceremony, Ronan Farrow tweeted: “Missed the Woody Allen tribute – did they put the part where a woman publicly confirmed he molested her at age 7 before or after Annie Hall?”

Mia also chimed in, tweeting that she was skipping the Allen tribute to watch HBO's "Girls" -- but the indignant tweets had already ignited a crusade of commentary, with pundits ruminating on whether it is possible -- or indeed, necessary -- to separate the art from the artist. Allen's friend and documentarian, producer Robert B. Weide was so incensed by the idle gossip he took to the Daily Beast to write a passionate defense of Allen.

But now, in light of Dylan Farrow's painful proclamation, all the rest is hearsay.

In a preface to Dylan's letter, Kristof disclosed that he is friends with her mother, Mia, and her brother, Ronan. He also addressed potential skeptics by explaining why he chose to resurrect this issue now, two decades after it happened.

Partly because the Golden Globe lifetime achievement award to Allen ignited a debate about the propriety of the award. Partly because the root issue here isn’t celebrity but sex abuse. And partly because countless people on all sides have written passionately about these events, but we haven’t fully heard from the young woman who was at the heart of them.

"Look, none of us can be certain what happened," Kristof continued. "The standard to send someone to prison is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but shouldn’t the standard to honor someone be that they are unimpeachably, well, honorable?"

Adding to the horror of Farrow's experience was confronting the reality of an indifferent public, or worse, a public that adored and acclaimed her "tormenter." She writes:

Last week, Woody Allen was nominated for his latest Oscar. But this time, I refuse to fall apart. For so long, Woody Allen’s acceptance silenced me. It felt like a personal rebuke, like the awards and accolades were a way to tell me to shut up and go away. But the survivors of sexual abuse who have reached out to me – to support me and to share their fears of coming forward, of being called a liar, of being told their memories aren’t their memories – have given me a reason to not be silent, if only so others know that they don’t have to be silent either.

What if it had been your child, Cate Blanchett? Louis CK? Alec Baldwin? What if it had been you, Emma Stone? Or you, Scarlett Johansson? You knew me when I was a little girl, Diane Keaton. Have you forgotten me?

Yesterday, Dylan Farrow—the adopted daughter of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow—published an account, on Nicholas Kristof’s New York Times blog, of the sexual abuse she says she suffered as a young girl at the hands of her famous father.

The post is moving and horrifying. And yet, the entirety of its premise is wrong—and in an important way. The piece is written as an open letter to the public, at whose feet Dylan Farrow lays blame for the continued adulation of her alleged abuser. She also calls out “Hollywood,” and in particular several actors who have worked with, or are friends with, Allen. One could hardly argue that the famous and the powerful aren’t given passes upon passes for every shade and shape of misbehavior. But that’s not what happened here. Someone is responsible for Dylan Farrow’s pain, but it is not the public.

In Farrow’s own words: “After a custody hearing denied my father visitation rights, my mother declined to pursue criminal charges, despite findings of probable cause by the State of Connecticut – due to, in the words of the prosecutor, the fragility of the ‘child victim.’ Woody Allen was never convicted of any crime.” Something is missing here, as it seems at the very least unclear that there were charges that could be pressed. But at least for argument’s sake, let’s take Dylan Farrow at her own word. If true, Mia Farrow’s decision not to press charges makes clear and obvious sense. She was, according to this account, protecting a fragile and traumatized child—which would have been nearly anyone’s top priority.

But that decision still had a major consequence in the court of public opinion: It disabled our ability to judge anyone either way, and it solidified this as an endless he-said-she-said. As Dylan Farrow notes: “Most found it easier to accept the ambiguity, to say, “who can say what happened.’” But this isn’t because people are callous or cowardly, as Farrow seems to be arguing. It’s because we, as private citizens, are not imbued with the right to pass these judgments. Instead, we maintain a court system for this, in which evidence is presented and sifted and adjudicated by a judge and a jury who are empowered to determine questions of guilt or innocence. Imagine if Mia Farrow had pressed charges and Allen had been convicted and gone to prison. Does anyone think, for one second, that he’d be the recipient of a Golden Globes lifetime achievement award?

And indeed, if anyone abrogated their civic duty, it was not the public. “That he got away with what he did to me haunted me as I grew up,” Farrow writes. “I was stricken with guilt that I had allowed him to be near other little girls.” She has one thing wrong here: *She* did not allow this; she was a child. But indeed, if we are to believe this story, her mother did—perhaps for entirely understandable reasons. But still: the person who, inadvertently or not, protected Allen from facing public judgment is the person who prevented him from ever being formally judged.

Again, I am not arguing that Mia Farrow made a mistake when she declined to press charges. I am simply saying that in doing so, she assured that the public would never have clear grounds on which to judge either side. Whatever the facts, it seems clear that everyone involved has experienced a toxic family psychodrama. But it is ultimately a private one. And the public’s resistance to declaring the guilt or innocence of any of the participants, as painful as it may be for Dylan Farrow or her mother or Woody Allen or anyone else, is in fact exactly the right moral choice. Dylan Farrow is angry and frustrated that no verdict was ever rendered in her case—and she should be. But the address for this cri de coeur is not us; it’s her mother.

NEW YORK – Woody Allen called Dylan Farrow's allegations of child molestation "untrue and disgraceful," signaling that he would fight renewed claims dating back to Allen's tempestuous relationship with actress Mia Farrow in the early 1990s.

The movie director's publicist Leslee Dart said in an email Sunday that Allen has read Dylan Farrow's open-letter, published online Saturday by The New York Times, claiming she was sexually assaulted when she was 7 by her then adoptive father.

"Mr. Allen has read the article and found it untrue and disgraceful," Dart said.

Allen's lawyer Elkan Abramowitz also reacted: "It is tragic that after 20 years a story engineered by a vengeful lover resurfaces after it was fully vetted and rejected by independent authorities. The one to blame for Dylan's distress is neither Dylan nor Woody Allen."

Dylan Farrow claimed that in 1992 at the family's Connecticut home, Allen led her to a "dim, closet-like attic" and "then he sexually assaulted me." Farrow didn't specify Allen's actions, but described other abusive behavior.

Allen was investigated on child molestation claims for the 1992 accusation, but was never charged.

Farrow's open-letter didn't urge renewed legal action, but a retrial for Allen in the court of public opinion. Farrow, who now lives in Florida, is married, and goes by another name, argued for fans of Allen's movies and actors who star in his films not to "turn a blind eye."

On Sunday, Sony Pictures Classics, which regularly distributes Allen's films including his latest, "Blue Jasmine," urged caution in any rush to judgment.

"This is a very complicated situation and a tragedy for everyone involved," the company said in a statement. "Mr. Allen has never been charged in relationship to any of this, and therefore deserves our presumption of innocence."

Alec Baldwin, who has starred in Allen films, including "Blue Jasmine," was among those Farrow singled out in her letter. Baldwin responded on Twitter to those demanding a comment from him.

"You are mistaken if you think there is a place for me, or any outsider, in this family's issue," said Baldwin.

Dylan Farrow's most detailed account of the 1992 incident returned the spotlight to the original police investigation of Allen. The handling of the investigation was criticized after Litchfield County state attorney Frank S. Maco said in a press conference that he believed there was "probable cause" to charge Allen but decided against prosecution partly to avoid a traumatic trial for the young girl.

A disciplinary panel found that Maco may have prejudiced the ongoing custody battle between Allen and Mia Farrow by making an accusation without formal charges.

Months before Maco's press conference, a team of child abuse specialists from Yale-New Haven Hospital were brought in to the case and concluded that the child had not been molested.

Maco, who retired in 2003, told the AP on Sunday that the statute of limitations on Dylan Farrow's accusations ran out at least 15 years ago. He said he hopes Farrow was able to watch his news conference and read his statement about his decision not to prosecute Allen.

"I hope she has access to that statement, to know what I did and why I did it," Maco said. "I hope she finds some peace and solace at this time."

A spokesman for the Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice said Sunday that the prosecutor's office won't re-examine the case unless the office is asked to.

The 1992 allegation came shortly after Allen became involved with Mia Farrow's adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn. Allen, then in his mid-50s, was not the adoptive father of Previn, who was about 19 at the time. The two married in 1997 and have two adopted daughters.

Dylan Farrow feels 'heartened' by outpouring of support from open letter detailing Woody Allen sexual abuse

Although she's been out of the limelight, Farrow shined a spotlight on the abuse she endured as a child at the hands of her adopted father.

BY Zayda Rivera

New York Daily News - February 2, 2014

Dylan Farrow is grateful for the outpouring of support she's received after breaking the silence about the sexual abuse she allegedly endured at the hands of her father Woody Allen.

"She's really heartened by the response and support she's getting," Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times columnist who broke the story, told People on Sunday.

The 28-year-old daughter of actress Mia Farrow, who was adopted by Allen, has been living in Florida under a different name.

"She was nervous about what the reaction would be to an essay so personal," Kristof added. "But she put herself out there."

Farrow left no stone unturned in her explosive story detailing Allen's alleged pedophilia, which left her scared for "more than two decades." In fact, she was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in 2013 after first reportedly suffering from the sexual abuse at 7 years old.

"When I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house," Farrow's open letter read.

"He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother's electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me," she added. "To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains."

On Jan. 12 Allen, who did not attend the Golden Globes, was awarded the coveted Cecil B. DeMille Award, which Diane Keaton presented.

"I cannot abide by the judgment of other people," Allen told ABC News in 1974 about why he prefers not to attend awards presentations. "If you accept it when they say you deserve an award, then you have to accept it when they say you don't."

It's a good guess that Farrow did not think Allen was deserving of such recognition. In fact, after hearing he was honored, "she curled up in a ball on her bed, crying hysterically."

"(The assault was) far worse than people know," she wrote in her letter. "That he got away with what he did to me haunted me as I grew up. I was terrified of being touched by men. I developed an eating disorder. I began cutting myself."

Now as she exposes the dark secrets from her childhood, Farrow has found a moment to rejoice in the support she's received thus far.

"She sends a big thank you to all those speaking up about sexual abuse and trying to break the silence," Kristof added.

Some of the information on The Awareness Center's
web pages may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material
available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues,
etc.

We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any
such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this
site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this update for purposes
of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Subscribe to The Awareness Center's Newsletter

Translate

Survivors ARE Heroes!

The Awareness Center believes ALL survivors of sex crimes should be given yellow ribbons to wear proudly.

Survivors of sexual violence (as adults and/or as a child) are just as deserving of a yellow ribbon as the men and women of our armed forces, who have been held captive as hostages or prisoners of war.

Survivors of sexual violence have been forced to learn how to survive, being held captive not by foreigners, but mostly by their own family members, teachers, camp counselors, coaches babysitters, rabbis, cantors or other trusted authority figures.

For these reasons ALL survivors of sexual violence should be seen as heroes!